Is fundie Atheism just as arrogant in assuming no God as fundie theism is in assuming their God is the only 1?

Answer 1

Yep, but there is only one God or there is not.

Answer 2

Arrogance is exhibited in the use of such a term as fundie atheism, since this would be at best a redundancy. There is by definition no form of atheism that isn't fundamental. Those with some doubt in holding that position, yet not yet theists, would in fact be agnostics.

Arrogance might also be defined as the holding of a position based on the superior status it appears to confer on the holder.
Atheists instead rely on logic, and if guilty of arrogance, it would be in applauding themselves for being rational when in fact all humans only use this tool sparingly.

Answer 3

Fundie Atheism... I like that. I think this is true for the most part though one doesn't need to be a fundie to believe there is only One God. It is not arrogant in either sense to believe there is only 1 God, or believe there is no God, it is only arrogant to believe you KNOW for a fact there is/is not. Then you believe yourself to be better than others and this is arrogant.

I believe there is One God... I might be wrong, I wont know this for a fact until I'm dead anyway. You may not believe in God but do you "know for a fact" there is none? If you answer "yes" then this is arrogance.

Answer 4

I don't think it's arrogant to "assume" something. It's when something is stated as genuine fact with absolutely no proof, and when those who don't want to believe something on that basis are ridiculed or pitied, that I think it's arrogant. Fundies don't call their beliefs "assumptions," they think they are absolute truths.
What I notice with most questions involving atheism is how very misunderstood it is, when it's not the atheists who have bought into an entire belief system with absolutely no proof or factual information. Why is that considered strange? You'd want more facts when you're buying a car than most people consider when choosing a religion (and most people don't choose; they just take on their parents' beliefs). Why accept such sloppy information when you're dealing with the fundamental questions of life?

Answer 5

I know what you mean, but I think you're using the term "fundie" rather loosely in this context. "Fundamentalism" in the context of Christianity means believing that literal belief in the Bible is FUNDAMENTAL to being a Christian. Fundamentalist Christians believe that anyone who doesn't believe literally in the Bible is not Christian. The term has been expanded to include literalist Muslims who believe that literal belief in the Quran is fundamental to to Islam and so forth (Fundamentalist Judaism would mean the belief that literal belief in the Torah is fundamental to Judaism).

Now, personally I'm an agnostic, but a lot of Atheists believe in reason and science. By definition, what they believe can be more or less disputed. I mean, if scientists found extremely strong evidence that something was other than scientists had previously thought, they'd examine the evidence and might eventually accept it after much analysis and testing.

But, one has to understand that there are a lot of things for which the evidence is so overwhelming that most rational and scientifically minded people are going to shrug off any argument you make apart from something really, really persuasive. For example, scientists have actually observed microscopic organisms evolving under a microscope. Evolution isn't just an extremely strong scientific hypothesis whose evidence is fossils. It's about as solid a fact as there can be because of those under-the-microscope observations.

If you tell a scientifically minded person that there are flying pigs in the world, they'll want to know your evidence. If all you have is that you think you have to have faith in flying pigs or you'll be tortured forever, they'll shrug you off. Same thing if you throw them a few tenuous arguments that don't really fit together. There's no reason to believe in flying pigs unless there's real evidence that they exist.

Now, there's a HUGE difference between fundamentalist religion and much of hard line Atheism. Fundamentalist religion is based on faith. Atheism is, in, I'd say, the vast majority of cases, based on science, evidence and reason. The logic of Atheism is basically that there's no more reason to believe in anything Divine than to believe in flying pigs. Since there is no evidence for either, according to Atheists, at least no real evidence (there's plenty of pseudo-evidence that fundamentalist Theists dredge up), it's logical to assume that neither the Divine nor flying pigs exist.

I disagree. My stance is I don't know what's going on in the universe and neither do you. New discoveries are made all the time. So, I derive different conclusions from the same lack of evidence. By that as it may, however, I think you'll find that hard line Atheists will listen to well structured, rational arguments based in fact and evidence if presented with it properly. Moreover, rational Atheists will never assume that you're a Satanist just because you disagree with them or tell you that you're going to be tortured forever if you disagree with them, even though they may well find your beliefs to be ridiculous.

For example, they may well concede that Agnostics have a point. Fundamentalists, by contrast, will not back down from their beliefs for any argument, because their beliefs are based on faith, not reason, and because they literally believe that anyone who argues with them is a servant of Satan and is going to burn in Hell.

Answer 6

Anyone who insists that they "know" God does or does not exist is being arrogant. The ONLY logical standpoint is agnosticism.

Note that I am NOT saying everyone has to be agnostic. What I'm saying is that we have no logical choice besides admitting that we just don't know. You can have faith and "believe," but you CAN NOT "know."

There are only three ways to go at the question - God definitely exists, God definitely doesn't exist, or Unknown. From the point of view of current human knowledge and science, the correct answer is Unknown. You can only arrive at the first two answers by "believing," which is why atheism is as much a spiritual belief as any religion is.

Answer 7

What's fundie atheism? I'm certain there is no God but if he popped into my office tomorrow and proved his existence in a few novel ways, I'd believe at once. Where does "fundamentalist" come into that?

Answer 8

Yes. The problem isn't religion and the problem isn't atheism. Lots of easy going religious people and easy going atheists can get along just fine. The problem is fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is absolute thinking and absolute thinking is the source of much misery and suffering in the world including the horrors of World War 2 and post-war communism in Russia and China. If this kind of absolute thinking prevails it doesn't matter if a person is religious, atheist, right wing, left wing or none of the above, they will eventually think they have the right to persecute others.

Answer 9

You're referring to positive atheism. Disbelief doesn't require any proof but positive atheism just like religion does-why waste time providing evidence of God's non existence. Attack religious dogma not belief in God.

Answer 10

Yes. It is arrogant on either side to not respect the freedoms of anyone else. "Fundie" Atheism is just a arrogant and annoying as "fundie" Christians.

Answer 11

No, because if you assume there is at least one god, why do you not also assume that god has a family, or a tribe, or distant cousins, a family tree, etc.? Thus no god is more likely than one god with no family or ancestors.