Thread: Gallup Poll: 4 in 10 believe man created by God 10,000 years ago

Originally Posted by xman

This is simply incorrect. There are no fundamentals of atheism, no dogma, no book, no anointed bishops, etc. As mentioned, an atheist may be fervent, passionate, even unyielding, but 'fundamentalist' is attributing a quality which is technically absent. At best it may be metaphorical.

Actually.....do the fundamentals have to be widely agreed upon? I don't see any reason why they should be.

If some man started a one-man-church he could still be a fundamentalist even though his ideas wouldn't be widely agreed upon. I think it could be the same for any atheist. If any person would cling to any belief in the face of evidence proving that his beliefs are false I think he'd be a fundamentalist.

And NO, NYCshaver, I'm NOT getting into that discussion, I'm talking about fundamentalism as a state of mind, not about whether religions are or can be true.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

If some man started a one-man-church he could still be a fundamentalist even though his ideas wouldn't be widely agreed upon. I think it could be the same for any atheist.

If an atheist started a church of any kind, they would suddenly no longer be an atheist.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

If any person would cling to any belief in the face of evidence proving that his beliefs are false I think he'd be a fundamentalist.

You may think what you like, but you'd be misdefining it. that person might be a fool and a damned stubborn one at that, but without fundaments ... well, it wouldn't sit right.

It would be incorrect to refer to 'Passionate' or even 'Militant' Atheists as 'Fundamentalist'. The reality is that an Atheist, no matter how whole heartedly he or she may believe in evolution, would readily change their position if presented with the evidence to denounce it. Nothing will change the position of a fundamentalist.

This thread is going no where.



We're just repeating what we already said by using different words.

Originally Posted by xman

If an atheist started a church of any kind, they would suddenly no longer be an atheist.


You may think what you like, but you'd be misdefining it. that person might be a fool and a damned stubborn one at that, but without fundaments ... well, it wouldn't sit right.

Claiming that there are no fundamentals can be a fundamental....

And I wasn't talking about an atheist starting a church. I was talking about your definition of fundamentals. Where you claimed that fundamentals have to be written down or agreed upon by a large group. I don't think this is true.

Even those who claim they have no beliefs have at least the belief that they have no beliefs.

Humans always make up fundamentals, it's how we percieve the world. We make up generic rules and adapt those when needed.

Someone who isn't able to adapt his rules in order to deal with the evidence presented is a fundamentalist. (And yes, a fool.) And there's nothing to say that he can't be an atheist.

Fundamentals can be as basic as "America is the best country in the world in all fields".

There are people that believe this regardless of evidence and that would make them fundamentalists.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

Claiming that there are no fundamentals ... would make them fundamentalists.

Still wrong. You're being rigid and stubborn, Alex. You want to redefine the language rather than learn and adapt. You're entitled to believe any mixed up jumble of ideas you like, but you might still wrong.

I see no reasoning behind your statements X, only accusations.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

And NO, NYCshaver, I'm NOT getting into that discussion, I'm talking about fundamentalism as a state of mind, not about whether religions are or can be true.

What discussion? I didn't say anything about religion.

Why not just look at the definition of fundamentalism

Definition of FUNDAMENTALISM

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



Atheism doesn't meet any of those.

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

What discussion? I didn't say anything about religion.

Why not just look at the definition of fundamentalism

Definition of FUNDAMENTALISM

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



Atheism doesn't meet any of those.

If you look at meaning 2 that you so kindly provided. A set of basic principles can be anything. Yes, two religions are named as examples. But does that automatically mean that it's only religions that qualify? I see no reason why.

As for why I claimed you brought religion into it?

So you are saying there is good evidence for god and atheists are ignoring it?

Wouldn't that make every atheist a fundamentalist by your definition?

If you aren't saying there is good evidence for god then how can you make the claim that an atheist would ignore it?

Seem pretty obvious to me.

By all definitions I've seen a fundamentalist is someone who adheres or would adhere to the basics of his/her beliefs regardless of evidence.

That means anyone can be a fundamentalist, regardless of what he does or doesn't believe.

Xavier, I'm not being stubborn and rigid, I'm simply doing what you claim to be doing, sticking to what I believe untill someone proves otherwise. So far...no one could.

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

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

Atheism doesn't meet any of those.

It meets number 2 like LX points out, wiki carries the description of fundamentalism a little further: "The term has since been generalized to mean strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity". Atheism definitely fits that, especially the in the face of unpopularity part since a very small percentage of people world wide believe in atheism, its very unpopular. I am not saying atheism is wrong, I dont KNOW one way or the other but popular it is not, and fundamentist it is.