Do Atheists treat religion like Oldiesfreak does the Democrats? (and vice-versa)

[DemPGH]

Is not the belief that bare nature is inherently moral itself a faith?

No, not unless some system is present, like maybe if an agrarian polytheistic system of language, ritual, etc. were built around it. To just believe that Nature is moral is just another opinion. I offered an anthropological definition of religion earlier in my post. Atheism does not fit.

I also say that to describe the time of Augustus as "civil" is laughable.  Given the era Bacon lived in, his misguided faith in the virtues of the Romans is understandable.  However, I would have thought such nonsense would have been relegated to the same dustbins as the idea of the "noble savage".

And although of course it was a general time of peace and prosperity, I'll accept that criticism - I also would not describe the time of Caesar as a time of atheism. Not at all. Bacon made similar remarks about atheism in other passages, but I'm not going to look them up right now.

However, it's true that there is no such thing as an atheistic crusade, because there's no reason to be. There are no holy orders, false claims of moral rectitude, etc. to force people to accept. There's no "God's work," no flag-waving. Atheism is the lack of belief. Religion gets caught up in nationalism and all that, atheism does not.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Atheism is the lack of belief.

Not so.  Atheists are defined by their belief in the non-existence of the divine in any form.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If only that were true, it would be lovely, but the few times in history when atheism has come anywhere close to being the official belief system it has proven to be just as capable of nationalism and bigotry as theism.

[John Dibble]

Humanism and Fundamentalism, whether of the Secular or the Theistic kind are inherently incompatible. So it would be impossible for a Fundamentalist Atheist to be Humanist (tho an FA might falsely describe himself as such).

A fundamentalist is the someone who sticks to the supposed fundamentals of their belief set. Specifically what 'fundamentals' does atheism, even in the strictest sense as you define it, have that are incompatible with humanism?

Atheism is the lack of belief.

Not so.  Atheists are defined by their belief in the non-existence of the divine in any form.

Only by strict definitions. Atheism is also defined more broadly as the lack of belief in gods.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Humanism and Fundamentalism, whether of the Secular or the Theistic kind are inherently incompatible. So it would be impossible for a Fundamentalist Atheist to be Humanist (tho an FA might falsely describe himself as such).

A fundamentalist is the someone who sticks to the supposed fundamentals of their belief set. Specifically what 'fundamentals' does atheism, even in the strictest sense as you define it, have that are incompatible with humanism?

I would have thought you wouldn't need to be reminded of what I view as the core attributes of Fundamentalism, since I spelled them out in a reply to you in this very thread, but alas it appears I was wrong.

Also, what is a fundie atheist? There aren't any fundamentals of atheism - you just have to not believe in any gods to be one - so how can we have fundamentalists?

Someone who behaves in the same manner as many Fundamentalist Theists.  To wit, unwilling to entertain any doubt that their beliefs are wrong and believing that those who do not share their beliefs are idiots, evil, or both.

Those characteristics are inconsistent with humanism, and I am disappointed that you appear to have not realized that without it being pointed out to you.

[John Dibble]

And how are those things fundamental aspects of atheism, again?

Additionally, I do fail to see how viewing another person as being dumb or evil for holding certain beliefs is contrary to being a humanist. Just because one might hold a negative opinion of others doesn't mean they would seek to treat them inhumanely or advocate for oppressing them.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

What term do you propose instead? I suppose "evangelical atheists" works. I think the idea is to differentiate between the types being described here and the atheists who don't care what other people believe.

[John Dibble]

What term do you propose instead? I suppose "evangelical atheists" works. I think the idea is to differentiate between the types being described here and the atheists who don't care what other people believe.

"Evangelical" doesn't work either, given that an atheist may hold the views about religious people Earnest specifies but not be active about promoting atheism. "Militant" doesn't work either, for similar reasons. There doesn't have to be a term to match the specific group of atheists Earnest is mentioning. Some atheists may be that way, but it doesn't necessarily warrant a term.

[DC Al Fine]

And how are those things fundamental aspects of atheism, again?

Additionally, I do fail to see how viewing another person as being dumb or evil for holding certain beliefs is contrary to being a humanist. Just because one might hold a negative opinion of others doesn't mean they would seek to treat them inhumanely or advocate for oppressing them.

The term works or doesn't work depending on which definition of fundamentalism you use.

1) Protestantism that embraces inerrancy, conservatism, and low church liturgy.

2) Angry, close-minded Christian

If you use the first definition, Fundamentalist Atheist doesn't work. If you use the second one, which is how the term is often used in the media today, Fundamentalist Atheist is a perfectly reasonable term to describe a certain sort of atheist.

[John Dibble]

And how are those things fundamental aspects of atheism, again?

Additionally, I do fail to see how viewing another person as being dumb or evil for holding certain beliefs is contrary to being a humanist. Just because one might hold a negative opinion of others doesn't mean they would seek to treat them inhumanely or advocate for oppressing them.

The term works or doesn't work depending on which definition of fundamentalism you use.

1) Protestantism that embraces inerrancy, conservatism, and low church liturgy.

2) Angry, close-minded Christian

If you use the first definition, Fundamentalist Atheist doesn't work. If you use the second one, which is how the term is often used in the media today, Fundamentalist Atheist is a perfectly reasonable term to describe a certain sort of atheist.

Fundamentalism is a concept that doesn't just apply to Christianity - it would be "a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles". Since being an atheist only requires you not believe in any gods, every atheist is a fundamentalist one because there aren't any other things you need to believe or disbelieve to be an atheist, which renders the term rather pointless.

The latter definition you provide takes away all original meaning to the word and stereotypes people. I've met plenty of fundamentalist Christians who are happy and generally pleasant people. Same for evangelicals Christians.

[DC Al Fine]

And how are those things fundamental aspects of atheism, again?

Additionally, I do fail to see how viewing another person as being dumb or evil for holding certain beliefs is contrary to being a humanist. Just because one might hold a negative opinion of others doesn't mean they would seek to treat them inhumanely or advocate for oppressing them.

The term works or doesn't work depending on which definition of fundamentalism you use.

1) Protestantism that embraces inerrancy, conservatism, and low church liturgy.

2) Angry, close-minded Christian

If you use the first definition, Fundamentalist Atheist doesn't work. If you use the second one, which is how the term is often used in the media today, Fundamentalist Atheist is a perfectly reasonable term to describe a certain sort of atheist.

The latter definition you provide takes away all original meaning to the word and stereotypes people. I've met plenty of fundamentalist Christians who are happy and generally pleasant people. Same for evangelicals Christians.

I concur, but the point is that definition is intended to be a smear, which is pretty much what people are going for when they throw out a term like fundamentalist atheist.

[DemPGH]

Not so.  Atheists are defined by their belief in the non-existence of the divine in any form.

It doesn't work that way - what you are saying does not compute. I think you wish to project theism's faults and shortcomings onto atheism.

One simply does not believe in a negative, not in that context anyway. If a birther comes along who does not believe in Obama's birth certificate, it can be produced in physical form.

But would you say that you 1) believe in the 2) non-existence of the 3) tooth fairy? Or Santa Claus? Of course not, no one would ever formally take that position. It's a fallacy to say it is a belief system to disbelieve in something for which there is no evidence.

If only that were true, it would be lovely, but the few times in history when atheism has come anywhere close to being the official belief system it has proven to be just as capable of nationalism and bigotry as theism.

See, you're telling a small part of the story. Perhaps the Soviet Union made it a policy to ban church worship or reading the Bible, but they also banned everything else, almost. That's not an "atheist government," it's a tyrannical government that happened to outlaw worship.

There were pockets and times in ancient Greece that came close to "atheistic government," although not really, and they just experimented and philosophized. The Ionian school comes to mind. Then they were persecuted by the polytheists.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Statement A: God exists
.... is a belief statement

It's opposite... Statement not-A: God does not exist
... is also a belief statement.

Holding either makes a statement on behalf of the person speaking of their beliefs, so I don't see logically how atheism can be defined as a non-belief. Believing that the tooth fairy does not exist is still a belief, just one in which the evidence is overwhelming in your favour.

From a human point of view, there are no facts, also believes for which the evidence is stronger or weaker (or non-existent).