Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Can Atheists be Fundamentalists?

Ontos
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 7:25:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
In The Dawkins' Delusion, McGrath and psychologist Joanna Collicutt, compare Dawkins' "total dogmatic conviction of correctness" to "a religious fundamentalism which refuses to allow its ideas to be examined or challenged."

My question is, even though the Atheist machine lacks "doctrine" can some, esp the new atheists, nevertheless be considered under the umbrella of fundamentalism?
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 7:31:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 7:25:21 PM, Ontos wrote:
In The Dawkins' Delusion, McGrath and psychologist Joanna Collicutt, compare Dawkins' "total dogmatic conviction of correctness" to "a religious fundamentalism which refuses to allow its ideas to be examined or challenged."

My question is, even though the Atheist machine lacks "doctrine" can some, esp the new atheists, nevertheless be considered under the umbrella of fundamentalism?

Collicutt is merely comparing militant atheism with religious fundamentalism. Atheism lacks a central idea, and it doesn't professes cause and effect, so it doesn't really have fundamentals.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Ontos
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 7:34:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 7:31:15 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/22/2012 7:25:21 PM, Ontos wrote:
In The Dawkins' Delusion, McGrath and psychologist Joanna Collicutt, compare Dawkins' "total dogmatic conviction of correctness" to "a religious fundamentalism which refuses to allow its ideas to be examined or challenged."

My question is, even though the Atheist machine lacks "doctrine" can some, esp the new atheists, nevertheless be considered under the umbrella of fundamentalism?

Collicutt is merely comparing militant atheism with religious fundamentalism. Atheism lacks a central idea, and it doesn't professes cause and effect, so it doesn't really have fundamentals.

What is your idea of a fundamentalist?
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 7:41:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If fundamentalism means a dogmatic belief which behaves aggressively against any sort of criticism, then of course atheists can be fundamentalists, and I'd argue that Dawkins is undoubtedly a fundamentalist in this regard.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 9:49:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 7:41:30 PM, unitedandy wrote:
If fundamentalism means a dogmatic belief which behaves aggressively against any sort of criticism, then of course atheists can be fundamentalists, and I'd argue that Dawkins is undoubtedly a fundamentalist in this regard.

I can't help but agree. Doesn't that turn other atheists off?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 10:31:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 9:49:00 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 4/22/2012 7:41:30 PM, unitedandy wrote:
If fundamentalism means a dogmatic belief which behaves aggressively against any sort of criticism, then of course atheists can be fundamentalists, and I'd argue that Dawkins is undoubtedly a fundamentalist in this regard.

I can't help but agree. Doesn't that turn other atheists off?

There's fundamentalists in every group, so why would that turn us off specifically?
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 11:17:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
fundamentalism: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

No. They can't be fundamentalists. There are no basic principles to adhere to strictly and literally.

And I hate Dawkins- but he leaves about 5% chance of him being wrong about atheism and god and has admitted it. That doesn't sound like something a fundamentalist would think.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 12:23:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 7:31:15 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/22/2012 7:25:21 PM, Ontos wrote:
In The Dawkins' Delusion, McGrath and psychologist Joanna Collicutt, compare Dawkins' "total dogmatic conviction of correctness" to "a religious fundamentalism which refuses to allow its ideas to be examined or challenged."

My question is, even though the Atheist machine lacks "doctrine" can some, esp the new atheists, nevertheless be considered under the umbrella of fundamentalism?

Collicutt is merely comparing militant atheism with religious fundamentalism. Atheism lacks a central idea, and it doesn't professes cause and effect, so it doesn't really have fundamentals.

I beg to differ. "God does not exist" is a central idea underpinning Atheism.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 12:46:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 11:17:51 PM, Oryus wrote:
fundamentalism: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

No. They can't be fundamentalists. There are no basic principles to adhere to strictly and literally.

And I hate Dawkins- but he leaves about 5% chance of him being wrong about atheism and god and has admitted it. That doesn't sound like something a fundamentalist would think.

Atheists cannot be, materialists can be. Can you be a fundamentalist to theism? Not unless you generalise a fundamentalism from a denomination.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 2:22:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 9:49:00 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 4/22/2012 7:41:30 PM, unitedandy wrote:
If fundamentalism means a dogmatic belief which behaves aggressively against any sort of criticism, then of course atheists can be fundamentalists, and I'd argue that Dawkins is undoubtedly a fundamentalist in this regard.

I can't help but agree. Doesn't that turn other atheists off?

It does to an extent, but there are always thinkers on any side of an argument who are horribly uninformed or worse. The only thing to do is to treat bad arguments on one's own side as you would treat similar arguments from theists.
Tlhedglin
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 4:20:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 7:25:21 PM, Ontos wrote:
In The Dawkins' Delusion, McGrath and psychologist Joanna Collicutt, compare Dawkins' "total dogmatic conviction of correctness" to "a religious fundamentalism which refuses to allow its ideas to be examined or challenged."

My question is, even though the Atheist machine lacks "doctrine" can some, esp the new atheists, nevertheless be considered under the umbrella of fundamentalism?

Sure, depending on ones concept of fundamentalism. However, I would not recommend that you assume Dawkins' positions to be typical of all atheists.

Dawkins' is more than just an atheist, he is an anti-theist as well. He literally hates theism, for whatever reason, and rails against it with more conviction and fervor than any antiabortionist...
Tlhedglin
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 4:27:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 9:49:00 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 4/22/2012 7:41:30 PM, unitedandy wrote:
If fundamentalism means a dogmatic belief which behaves aggressively against any sort of criticism, then of course atheists can be fundamentalists, and I'd argue that Dawkins is undoubtedly a fundamentalist in this regard.

I can't help but agree. Doesn't that turn other atheists off?

Sure, many. Most atheists would not deign to use his work as reference material even if you threatened them with eternal torment. It saw more airtime in theistic circles than atheistic ones, for a good lot of atheists feel that he is like the Ray Comfort of Atheism. The majority of atheists are NOT anti-theists, so find his arguments to be almost humorous.

I, personally, would find him to be much funnier if people were less likely to lump all atheism with him.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 6:45:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/23/2012 12:46:06 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 4/22/2012 11:17:51 PM, Oryus wrote:
fundamentalism: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

No. They can't be fundamentalists. There are no basic principles to adhere to strictly and literally.

And I hate Dawkins- but he leaves about 5% chance of him being wrong about atheism and god and has admitted it. That doesn't sound like something a fundamentalist would think.

Atheists cannot be, materialists can be. Can you be a fundamentalist to theism? Not unless you generalise a fundamentalism from a denomination.

So we could then say that non-denominational folks cannot be fundamentalist. Makes sense to me. If there is no clear tenet to strictly uphold, there cannot be fundamentalism.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.