Fundamentalist Christians and Militant Atheists?

Question

Someone asked a question about fundamentalist christians and i wondered about the similarities...

Atheists argue that fundamentalism is an inevitable consequence of religion and appeals to those who cannot tolerate arguments against religious faith.

Miltant atheism has been criticised as being fundamentalist because of its aggressive criticism towards theism. For example, when Albania declared itself an atheist state, it was deemed by some to be a kind of fundamentalist atheism and where Stalinism was like the state religion which replaced other religions and political idealogies. Any one practising a non-Stalinist religion or setting up a different political party would be sent to prison or tortured.

Militant atheism has been criticised in that it can be dogmatic and intolerant. Richard Dawkins is an example for his dogmatic intolerance to theists.

What are your thoughts? No offense to either end of the spectrum intended.

Sophia - thanks for your answer but i'm not sure i understood how it relates to the question

Answer 1

Militant atheism has two fundamental flaws in its argument:

1. It assumes that spiritualism has no positive effects on people, which is inaccurate, and I mean that in a scientific and empirical way. It is a FACT that many people do good deeds and find comfort in their religion, regardless of whether or not God exists. There is no reason to take away these people's reason to be. (That is NOT to say that atheists can't be good and peaceful people. Different people have different ways of expressing their good or bad nature).

2. Militant atheism also assumes that somehow the world would be a better place if religion did not exist. They blame wars on religion, conveniently ignoring the wars that have no religious basis and ignoring the cultural and social causes of the wars that DO have religious connotations. They somehow think that we would all be better off not believing in God, ignoring the fact that human nature would remain the same. If religion did not exist, people would still be greedy and selfish and would simply invent more "scientific" reasons to kill one another. WWII is a great example. Some people are good. Some people are bad. Religion has nothing to do with it.

I totally and utterly agree that fundamentalist religion is wrong. But being intolerant of all religious people because SOME people are religious nuts is wrong, too. There is no good motivation for trying to steal away someone's spiritual beliefs, even if you think it's crazy. It would be no different than stealing away someone's cultural beliefs or personal interests or anything else that is not necessarily based on science or "reason." Our world needs to learn tolerance if we are going to conquer war, poverty, and hunger. That goes for militant atheists, too. You can't be a "tolerant" person and be intolerant of someone's personal beliefs that have nothing to do with you. Go ahead and fight against the people who push their beliefs on others, but leave the rest of us alone.

Also, there is a BIG difference between tolerating someone's religion, which has nothing to do with you, and tolerating pedophilia or crime, which effects everyone by its very nature. Religion is only a problem when people push it on others (same holds true for atheism), whereas crimes effect everyone, no matter what. The person below me is making an irrelevant argument. I guarantee you that even an atheist has some beliefs, interests, personal tastes, or other cultural or societal biases that are no more intelligent or logical than religion is to someone else, assuming that God doesn't exist. And if he does, then who's stupid now? Regardless, how would you like it if someone tried to convince you that you were stupid for rooting for your favorite sports team or being an American? What's the difference?

Answer 2

Nothing is worse than active ignorance. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe "When I was a child I spoke as a child I understood as a child I thought as a child; but when I became a man I put away childish things." I Cor. xiii. 11. Sadly Fundies attack to disgrace CGod and Chrsitianity! Atheists are forced to defend themselves and GOOD Chrsitians suffer for it! ALL the other religions and atheists live in peace and are ONLY attacked by BAD christians which causes all GOOD christians to despair at the damage they do! Up until about 40 years back Christianity was thriving and there was no conflict with others but in just those few short years the modern christians have become intolerant, hate filled, bigoted and persecuting resulting in a growing backlash against christianity and causing christianity to loose over ten percent in less than a decade with the loss accelerating! The self destruction of Christianity is underway and the only thing that can stop it is to abandon the terrible human emotions, seek to rediscover the idea of a loving god and act like it!

Answer 3

From my observation fundamentalism seems to be a descriptive which signifies simplicity.

Of course there's simplicity which is elegant and beautiful, and then there's simplicity which is a product of sloth, that is the intellectual laziness that avoids the effort of argument, verification of premises used in argument critical analysis and instead takes the apparently easy way of snap-judgements, off-the-shelf belief systems and cosmologies.

That people are able to live with the cognitive dissonance that such tripe evokes in me is baffling, but then I'm fully occupied with trying to understand other more immediate aspects of consciousness and being. As a consequence I haven't had the motivation to thoroughly examine it. I'll watch the other answers here though and see what has integrity with my own cosmology.

By the way, I see a number of cases in these answers that seem to reflect an understanding of the term "deism" and "deist" without appreciation for the fact that it primarily refers to those who believe in G(g)od on purely rational grounds without reliance on revelation or authority.

The term "atheist" could also bear a bit of examination. If one doesn't believe in a literal anthropomorphic big master-puppeteer in the sky but does believe in the efficacy of the power of ideals and their pursuit, is he still an atheist?

Answer 4

Why should either end of the spectrum be spared offence when they are the worst offenders in that respect?

It seems they are virtually identical. You only have to stick the word "non" if front of 'believer' and you have the opposite. It's Duality personified. They both act with the same verbal violence and are equally deaf to the other.

Pity we cannot have them slug it out in a enormous boxing tournament. At least they might gain respect for each other. and give the rest of us less aggressive vibes for a while.

Answer 5

I'm grateful I don't live in a country without a culture or identity to create these petty and childish trivial labelling and name calling among it's citizens. I know for a fact no American student is ever taught anything about the different cultures or geography of the world. I would love to see America establish it's own culture and friendship and no racial differences between US citizens.

Answer 6

I agree.

I find militant Antitheists to be as dogmatic and intolerant of dissent as any other type of militant "fundamentalist" fanatic.
I find it difficult and usually impossible to reason with either "fundamentalist' type and most usually quickly turn to insult and condemning sneers. Logic and discussion are not usually part of the package. i often find "personal issues" behind the verbal violence of many"Fundatheists" and "Fundachristians"( including "Fundalibchristians "or PostChristians) and "Fundamuslims"

Millions more have been killed in the name of militant atheistic antitheism than have ever been killed in the name of any other type of 'religion"

Answer 7

Richard Dawkins seems intolerant mostly to those who haven't read his books. He's certainly direct, but unfortunately most of the theists who criticize him don't know what he actually says.

Ummm-strats-they don't. If they did the Christians would be trumpetting it to the heavens. In fact, atheism is about the only religion under-represented in our prisons.

Answer 8

I think everybody should quit getting so upset over what someone else believes or doesn't.

We're not a Christian nation, and we're not in any real danger of becoming one. We're a democracy--majority rules. Whoever has more voters will win elections, period.

Edit: I think most Christians and atheists who get upset about the others' beliefs in the US are mainly concerned with political issues, like one is going to "take over" the country; either the "godless heathens" or the "right wing religious wackos".

Answer 9

I agree. Truly militant atheists and fundies are the same wolves in different clothing. Or at least, that's the way it seems.

As far as I've seen on Y!A, though, there may be some extremists, but I have yet to see anybody that's truly dangerous outside of having a general group political influence. Of course, there are some real nut-jobs here, so who knows? There may be several genuine psychotics here that have yet to act on their hateful bigotry.

~atheist~

Answer 10

Extremism in any case is not good.

There have been extremist atheist governments which were horrible and extremist religion ones that were horrible too.

It is never good.