Atheist fundamentalism?

[5810Singer]

radicality (is that a word?)

I believe the correct usage is "radicalism".

 

[Andiferous]

I rather like the term 'Athiest fundamentalism'.

Main Entry: fun,·da,·men,·tal,·ism
Pronunciation: \-tə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1922

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 <Islamic fundamentalism> <political fundamentalism> (Merriam-Webster)

It's not fundamentalism, as there are no basic principles to atheism in the sense of maxims.

All it takes is for their role model to recognize his/hers mistake, and to admit it publicly. And the fanboys will submit. That's all.

Not quite, group dynamics are more intricate than that. The flock will disperse into subgroups, some will abandon the 'movement', some will try to keep what they think the idea to be going, others may further radicalize it. Which is pretty much the same thing that happens to any existing group formed on an idea rather than survival/necessity.

I admit to being a bit flip, but I think in this particular case (no pun intended there) the problem is that there are a few atheist extremists who do exhibit signs of treating Atheism as a religion, and taking that religion at face value. The term is a bit ironic that way. Why I like it. I still like it very much.

 

[Baranduin]

What about "artheists", portemanteau (malamanteau?) of "arses" and "atheists"? Ah, aurea mediocritas...

 

[Womble]

I think i know the term you're all looking for, its muppets. These people are all being muppets, and not very good ones either. I'm currently subbed to both coughlan and pat condell, i find both entertaining for different reasons and so long as that stays the case i'll stay subbed to them.

It's muppetry of the highest calibre thats going on, and the attitudes and the insults being carried out in the names of these two yters are deplorable. It brings to mind my tongue in cheek alteration of the DMCA thingie...D*ckheads Misusing Censorship Abominally.

 

[rabbitpirate]

Excellent post Squawk. I completely agree with what you are saying, specially the part about teaching critical thinking skills as a way of bringing people to a logical atheistic conclusion.

I subscribe to all the major players in this, as well as a number of people such as LatumWay who got hit with similar abuse simply for mentioning the argument - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaZijMzg0cE . I find that I agree with much of what all three of them say. However I also find that I disagree with things they say as well, and as Squawk pointed out that is really the point.

For example watching Pat's video on UKIP actually made me consider voting for them, and so I did a bit of research, looked up their policies and decided that in fact I wouldn't be voting for them after all. I still think that Pat had some valid points, as did Richard in his video about why voting for UKIP was a bad idea, even if I feel he did focus too much on Pat as a person rather than what he was saying.

Agreeing with people just because of who they are and because they have said things you agree with in the past is always a bad idea. I will always be thankful to Richard Dawkins for explaining evolution to me and helping me accept that my atheism was not an evil and terrible thing, and yet I disagree with him in a number of ways with regards to how he approaches theists.

In my dealings with theists my ultimate goal is usually to free them from the stigma of religion, to free their minds from the controlling influence that is the doctrine of their own brand of faith. I have long been of the opinion that the best way to do this is to teach critical thinking. Rather than demonstrating the absurdity of the positions religion takes, I prefer to help the person come to that conclusion themself by getting them to address their own beliefs in an unbiased way. These events have only strengthened my conviction that this is the correct approach. The messages sent by atheists here shows clearly that atheism is by no means a guarantee of rationality and is evidently not a sign of tolerance. Atheism might be the rational position, but you do not have to be rational to be atheist. Teach rationality, teach critical thinking, teach tolerance.

I think that is beautifully put. For my way of thinking atheism is a natural extention of good reason based skepticism. Teaching someone critical thinking skills can be done without specifically targeting their deeply held religious beliefs. Get someone thinking critically in the rest of their lives and suddenly it is not such a hard sell to get them to apply it to their religious beliefs as well. As I said I agree with this approach entirely...and death to any one who disagrees. :twisted:

 

[ashraghil]

To start a discussion about if and why there are fundamentalists, extremists or fanatics among the atheist community is walking on a slippery slope. And it is not the term fundamentalist that bothers me here, it is the term community.
Whenever a community forms, it forms because the people joining it are somewhat likeminded. And it does not necessarily require any basic principles carved in stone to give rise to extremists among the members of any community. It just needs other people who are not likeminded. There was a time when not believing in supernatural beings just meant to not taking part on religious activities. It needed Richard Dawkings publicly stating "Stop being so damn polite" and similar recent events that gave birth to the term "atheist community".

It is grist for the mill of those who need to keep their sheep in the religious shelter, that the concept of "the enemy" is now a community and not individual persons. Surely it has become much more difficult to keep up the perfect illusion of the universe made and cared for by an almighty being, because now the knowledge base of a whole community has to be refuted. But on the other hand it is the opportunity to declare this community to be a new threat, a conspiracy, one more different religion-like group that is obviously wrong, because it is not ones own religion. And of course it is a chance to look out for people who are extreme in the way they express their world view. It just takes one of the comments mentioned in Squawks article to back up the argument, that atheists are no better than the fanatics they judge.

I sincerely hate the fact, that not believing in religous bullshit has a name. Whenever the term Atheism is getting discussed it is almost like discussing a medical condition - religious people definitely consider it to be some sort of sickness, non-religious people subconciously think of it as some kind of mental evolutionary step to become an atheist. I sincerely hate the fact, that my not willingness to believe in something irrational is treated as something special - no matter if it is a good or bad kind of "special".

So, from my point of view, I am not special by having left the religion I have been born into. And I did not "switch" the community, I did not apply for a membership in the atheist community. Neither do I feel responsible for any erratic behaviour of other people who do not believe in god, nor should I get stigmatized for it. That's exactly, what Coughlan666 does in his video, and in his defense, I actually believe that he is not trying to manipulate anyones mind with it. Sure, he played the "Atheist Community"-Card, but he did not introduce the card and its meaning into the game. We did, we just never thought, that it could be used against us.

Oh yes, it is a shame, that there are people trolling around on Youtube who lack the intelligence to deal in a proper way with guys like Coughlan666. Technically they are sending out death threats against people who criticize people who criticize people who (among other things) are sending out death threats. But while the last group of people mentioned in this irrational sounding statement is doing so, because they sincerely believe that a higher power wishes them to make those threats reality, our weirdo atheists have (hopefully) not been indoctrinated to kill everybody who insults their holy Richard or their Messaiah Thunderf00t. And in case these people somehow DO consider Thunderf00t or Pat or whoever to be some kind of prophets, the prophets might want to chose to dethrone themselves symbolically.

Again: I haven't invented the word "Atheism". I just believe in zero gods and because the whole world believes this number of gods in ones life is special, they are labelling me as an atheist, no matter if I like it or not. And I am not part of an atheist community. There are just recently a lot of people in the world who aren't afraid of stating publicly nGods > 0 in a persons life is irrational and in some cases dangerous. And I agree with them. If some of them are crying out loud death threats, it does not imply, that atheism means making death threats, nor does it mean that other atheists are no longer the ones to judge fanatism. At least not until I can see a report on CNN about the Times Square full of atheists, carrying banners saying "Slaughter those who believe in a god" and "Butcher those who insult Atheism". Actually even then it wouldn't be my responsibility - because then I would be able to tell myself, that what I stand for is not called "Atheism".

 

[popovich]

Personally I'd argue they are more extreme by far, but I agree entirely with your deductions.

Yes, you're correct. These people can accept the extremism other people "preach" and take it to a whole new level.
Again, that's understandable once you put yourself in that position and try to ask yourself a simple question:
"Am I a good follower if I don't show my dedication to defend the movement?"

Whilst I agree with what you say, I'm sure you'll concede that what you just wrote took a lot longer than: "They're arseholes..."

But ultimately "arseholes" is what you've described, wether you used the word or not.

I concede. (because it did took a lot longer, no point in arguing that)
But then again, you'll have to concede that making a post with the content no longer than "They're arseholes..."
would just make me look like an idiot that just likes to insult people, thus making himself look bad without actually
addressing the issue at hand and making his point substantiated with logic reasoning.
Also, it's easier for you to latch onto previously made arguments and just add a few insults.

Not quite, group dynamics are more intricate than that. The flock will disperse into subgroups, some will abandon the 'movement', some will try to keep what they think the idea to be going, others may further radicalize it. Which is pretty much the same thing that happens to any existing group formed on an idea rather than survival/necessity.

That's true. I do agree with the statement that group dynamics are more intricate than what I simply described.
However, my personal belief is that group dynamics of internet atheist "movement" is a lot less intricate.
You might ask, why?
Well, usually groups consist of people who's physical presence is needed to form a group.
In those kinds of groups, people meet each other, share experiences, try to establish their credibility and status within the group.
That's why people tend to follow those with a higher status than their own.
Now, when that group is under disruptive influence (external or internal) it takes a strong integrity of a person to admit being wrong.
The higher you're up the group ladder, the stronger the integrity of a person is required.
Mind you, influence of a person does nothing to show it's integrity, it only manifests it's desire for power and leadership.
When primary leader/spokesperson of the group is shown to be wrong and admits it, that's heavy psychological blow because of
all the people within that group who know you personally, more or less. Great amount of dissatisfaction, disappointment and
contempt is displayed toward the leader/spokesperson.
Some people with higher status within the group (so called "deputies") cannot suffer the scorn that follows.
So they fail to submit and subsequently branch off. Naturally, they take some of the group members along with them.
Those members are in a state of denial, or just too proud to admit they've been lead astray.

That being said, internet "community" does not have all the primary characteristics of a group.
Therefore, group dynamics do not fully apply to it. Mainly because, when you're wrong on the internet, you can just "not reply".
You can hide without anyone, who knows you personally, even knowing you ever followed the wrong "leader".
That's what the "unsubscribe" and "close account" options are there for.

 

[5810Singer]

Whilst I agree with what you say, I'm sure you'll concede that what you just wrote took a lot longer than: "They're arseholes..."

But ultimately "arseholes" is what you've described, wether you used the word or not.

I concede. (because it did took a lot longer, no point in arguing that)
But then again, you'll have to concede that making a post with the content no longer than "They're arseholes..."
would just make me look like an idiot that just likes to insult people, thus making himself look bad without actually
addressing the issue at hand and making his point substantiated with logic reasoning.
Also, it's easier for you to latch onto previously made arguments and just add a few insults.

Popovich,.....you seem to have found my previous post irksome, I really don't know why despite reading what you've just written.

Did you feel I was criticising you? I wasn't, other than in the most flippant and "not-to-be-taken-seriously" way.

As far as "latching onto previous arguments",.......the only argument I was referencing was my own from some posts previous to yours,..........I have the right to "latch on" to my own statements, wouldn't you agree?

Finally, I'm going to expand on the point I made in my previous post.

We can call these people "atheist fundamentalists", but there are problems with the accuracy of that phrase,...."militant atheists" has similar problems,....but,...."arseholes" is universally understood and accepted, and describes the demeanour and behaviour of the people we're talking about.

And,...it's actually a fundamentally more accurate description of these people and their motivations.
We aren't talking about "noble atheists who have broken under the constant strain of fighting theism",.......we're just talking about arseholes.
We're talking about the sort of people who think that everybody should agree with them, and anyone who doesn't should get stomped on,.....they're not rationalists,....and considering their fascistic attitude, they're not free-thinkers either.
You will find people like this of all religious and political types,....again it is irrational, unrealistic, unhelpul, and misleading to come up with specialised identifiers for all those people,....they ALL act like arseholes regardless of their religio-political views.

If you want to take this to the root causes of their behaviour, then the arsehole explanation is still going to beat any of the others in terms of frequency.
You have to accept that there are many unpleasant people in the world, and whatever experiences led to them being that way, they don't suffer any form of mental illness or indoctrination.
So what word do we use to identify deeply unpleasant people with no mental illness, and no doctrinal basis for their actions?
We call them arseholes.

After all the wrangling about how to describe these people I think you will find that that one simple, colloquial, easily understandable, and widely accepted word is still the best descriptor for the people we're talking about.

 

[c0nc0rdance]

One repeated theme observed in behavioral research is that of "inferior agent thinking". People inherently attribute their own reasons for behavior to some cerebral logic, and the motivations of the others around them as less logical, more emotional or ignorant. We're seeing that in these posts. For some reason, people who agree with a popular blogger must be doing so for fundamentalist reasons, because they could not have thought out their positions as thoroughly as "we" have thought out ours. They must be militant, or fundamentalist, or fanboys, all words that evoke a mindless subscription to a position.

I propose an alternative. Perhaps each side has clearly thought through the issues, arrived at conflicting conclusions, and now fundamentally disagree.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Case]

One repeated theme observed in behavioral research is that of "inferior agent thinking". People inherently attribute their own reasons for behavior to some cerebral logic, and the motivations of the others around them as less logical, more emotional or ignorant. We're seeing that in these posts. For some reason, people who agree with a popular blogger must be doing so for fundamentalist reasons, because they could not have thought out their positions as thoroughly as "we" have thought out ours. They must be militant, or fundamentalist, or fanboys, all words that evoke a mindless subscription to a position.

I propose an alternative. Perhaps each side has clearly thought through the issues, arrived at conflicting conclusions, and now fundamentally disagree.

Just my thoughts.

Maybe my comment on that particular issue was too subtle.

 

[5810Singer]

One repeated theme observed in behavioral research is that of "inferior agent thinking". People inherently attribute their own reasons for behavior to some cerebral logic, and the motivations of the others around them as less logical, more emotional or ignorant. We're seeing that in these posts. For some reason, people who agree with a popular blogger must be doing so for fundamentalist reasons, because they could not have thought out their positions as thoroughly as "we" have thought out ours. They must be militant, or fundamentalist, or fanboys, all words that evoke a mindless subscription to a position.

I propose an alternative. Perhaps each side has clearly thought through the issues, arrived at conflicting conclusions, and now fundamentally disagree.

Just my thoughts.

And because they disagree they have carte blanche to make death threats?

What kind of rational thought process leads to someone thinking: "Hmm, what should my response be to criticism of someone I respect? I know: "Fuck you, you cunt! If I ever find out where you live I'm gonna slit your throat!"".........?




This isn't an academic debate,....we're discussing a situation that is currently ongoing,......you can go and check all the vids involved, and all the comments attached to them,...and then once YOU have "clearly thought through the issues", with possession of the full facts, you might be in a position to make a judgement call.

 

[Andiferous]

One repeated theme observed in behavioral research is that of "inferior agent thinking". People inherently attribute their own reasons for behavior to some cerebral logic, and the motivations of the others around them as less logical, more emotional or ignorant. We're seeing that in these posts. For some reason, people who agree with a popular blogger must be doing so for fundamentalist reasons, because they could not have thought out their positions as thoroughly as "we" have thought out ours. They must be militant, or fundamentalist, or fanboys, all words that evoke a mindless subscription to a position.

I propose an alternative. Perhaps each side has clearly thought through the issues, arrived at conflicting conclusions, and now fundamentally disagree.

Just my thoughts.

I'm confused by this post, as you seem to be supporting both positions. And not necessarily arguing against Squawk's article.

 

[c0nc0rdance]

I should clarify and apologize to all of you. I really had in mind the Thunderf00t v DawahFilms controversy, and I misinterpreted the tone and subject of the comments.

The Coughlan666 v Condell strikes me as distinctly political. I'm not a fan of the UKIP party either, but I would not have personalized the attack. Coughlan makes a video entitled "Pat Condell is an Ignorant Hypocrite", which makes him not quite an innocent party. The responses cross every line, which is, frankly, par for YouTube.

This is not my first day on the Internet, but I am still amazed at what passes as acceptable behavior on the YouTube forums. I made a video on the scientific understanding of the origin of HIV. The last eight or so commenters have all been of the "it was people humping monkeys" variety. I regularly get hate mail from AIDS denialists, creationists, and, of course, GoodScienceForYou. Here's a favorite from him:

"The proteans are the result of the DNA-RNA and cell reproduction. I thought you had a degree in this shit. You cannot refute my hypothesis of human parent of chimps. It fits all the evidence. Random is not a scientific term, because it violates the foundation of science that you supposedly use. There is only cause and result. There is no random. There is no directed either. Determinism is just more religious bullshit. There is no magical, mystical bullshit in science. Evodelusionism is bullshit. Clad is one of the spellings. Go look. Diamonds are not digestible by anything. Nylon is, because bacteria "digest" anything with digestable carbon and they also use carbon in photosynthesis. But you should know that. If it remains as bacteria, it did not evolve. I hope the lessons of your life are not too bad, that you turn all of this shit around and wake up before horrible events happens to you. When you operate out of ignorance, the results, according to science is bad. But that is the fate of deeply fearful weak and ignorant people. Ignorance is the conditions in which really bad karma (the laws of life) comes to people.

I am going to make videos about you. I am going to make you look as stupid as you are. I already have the stuff for the videos. I have a following of people who want this shit out of science. I am going to continue to mock this crap pseudo science of yours and I intend to get my law degree and sue every school that has this religious bull shit in it.
Which university did you go to. I will make that the second school I go after.

I've had death threats from creationists as well. One offered to "clean out my ears with a .45". It never occurred to me to blame the whole group for the actions of the usual Internet flamers.

Again, my apologies.

 

[ashraghil]

One repeated theme observed in behavioral research is that of "inferior agent thinking". People inherently attribute their own reasons for behavior to some cerebral logic, and the motivations of the others around them as less logical, more emotional or ignorant. We're seeing that in these posts. For some reason, people who agree with a popular blogger must be doing so for fundamentalist reasons, because they could not have thought out their positions as thoroughly as "we" have thought out ours. They must be militant, or fundamentalist, or fanboys, all words that evoke a mindless subscription to a position.

I propose an alternative. Perhaps each side has clearly thought through the issues, arrived at conflicting conclusions, and now fundamentally disagree.

i must admit, I am having a hard time to connect this post to the initial article, too. Actually the article raised the question if there exists something like Atheistic Fundamentalism. You might not be a fan of the alternatives that have been offered yet in the responses to this article, but as hard as I have tried, something in me always fundamentally disagrees with the diplomatic strategy of persuasion by death threat. Perhaps we should opt for a more neutral word, like "Smurfs"? We could even try to argue if we are actually talking about death threats, but rather about an offer for euthanasia.

 

[ashraghil]

Ooops, having read the previous post, I regret my snide comment....

 

[Case]

@5:50

 

[popovich]

Popovich,.....you seem to have found my previous post irksome, I really don't know why despite reading what you've just written.

Did you feel I was criticising you? I wasn't, other than in the most flippant and "not-to-be-taken-seriously" way.

As far as "latching onto previous arguments",.......the only argument I was referencing was my own from some posts previous to yours,..........I have the right to "latch on" to my own statements, wouldn't you agree?

Finally, I'm going to expand on the point I made in my previous post.

We can call these people "atheist fundamentalists", but there are problems with the accuracy of that phrase,...."militant atheists" has similar problems,....but,...."arseholes" is universally understood and accepted, and describes the demeanour and behaviour of the people we're talking about.

And,...it's actually a fundamentally more accurate description of these people and their motivations.
We aren't talking about "noble atheists who have broken under the constant strain of fighting theism",.......we're just talking about arseholes.
We're talking about the sort of people who think that everybody should agree with them, and anyone who doesn't should get stomped on,.....they're not rationalists,....and considering their fascistic attitude, they're not free-thinkers either.
You will find people like this of all religious and political types,....again it is irrational, unrealistic, unhelpul, and misleading to come up with specialised identifiers for all those people,....they ALL act like arseholes regardless of their religio-political views.

If you want to take this to the root causes of their behaviour, then the arsehole explanation is still going to beat any of the others in terms of frequency.
You have to accept that there are many unpleasant people in the world, and whatever experiences led to them being that way, they don't suffer any form of mental illness or indoctrination.
So what word do we use to identify deeply unpleasant people with no mental illness, and no doctrinal basis for their actions?
We call them arseholes.

After all the wrangling about how to describe these people I think you will find that that one simple, colloquial, easily understandable, and widely accepted word is still the best descriptor for the people we're talking about.

I didn't think you were criticizing me, even though I wouldn't have anything against it.
Feel free to criticize me as much as you like if you disagree with my opinion.
I recognized it as a joke, but still, would you allow me to express my opinion if I didn't resort to jokes?

As far as reference to your previous post is concerned, I didn't see anything referencing to previously made arguments
other than you repeating the word "arseholes" you were using in almost every sentence of your previous post.
You presented your opinion in that post. And that's fine. You have the right to post it as many times as you like,
but to me, "fanboys" don't necessarily equate to "arseholes", regardless of the hostility they display.
I see arrogant and obnoxious people as "arseholes", I see "fanboys" as something else.
Depends on how you look at the motives of their hostility.

Anyway, I'd rather focus on the topic at hand because that's really the only reason I registered this account in the first place.
Can we call it a day?

 

[Andiferous]

This is not my first day on the Internet, but I am still amazed at what passes as acceptable behavior on the YouTube forums. I made a video on the scientific understanding of the origin of HIV. The last eight or so commenters have all been of the "it was people humping monkeys" variety. I regularly get hate mail from AIDS denialists, creationists, and, of course, GoodScienceForYou. Here's a favorite from him:

"The proteans are the result of the DNA-RNA and cell reproduction. I thought you had a degree in this shit. You cannot refute my hypothesis of human parent of chimps. It fits all the evidence. Random is not a scientific term, because it violates the foundation of science that you supposedly use. There is only cause and result. There is no random. There is no directed either. Determinism is just more religious bullshit. There is no magical, mystical bullshit in science. Evodelusionism is bullshit. Clad is one of the spellings. Go look. Diamonds are not digestible by anything. Nylon is, because bacteria "digest" anything with digestable carbon and they also use carbon in photosynthesis. But you should know that. If it remains as bacteria, it did not evolve. I hope the lessons of your life are not too bad, that you turn all of this shit around and wake up before horrible events happens to you. When you operate out of ignorance, the results, according to science is bad. But that is the fate of deeply fearful weak and ignorant people. Ignorance is the conditions in which really bad karma (the laws of life) comes to people.

I am going to make videos about you. I am going to make you look as stupid as you are. I already have the stuff for the videos. I have a following of people who want this shit out of science. I am going to continue to mock this crap pseudo science of yours and I intend to get my law degree and sue every school that has this religious bull shit in it.
Which university did you go to. I will make that the second school I go after.

Goodscienceforyou! We could discuss endlessly and never get to the bottom of him.

I do find that in some cases,Youtube is the height of not classy.

 

[5810Singer]

@Popovich

You are obviously my intellectual, moral, and social superior, I bow to you in deepest regret for having appeared in your field of vision.

 

[Squawk]

MOD NOTE

Please don't turn this into a slagging match, there's a pretty good discussion going on

END MOD NOTE