No wars, must be forget?

I believe the term "Fundamentalist Atheist" is used today to describe those atheists who behave as religious fundamentalists, demonstrating aggression towards opposing ideas, inflexibility in thought, ignorance of opposing thought and doctrine, and the use of ad hominem attacks when pressed. Certainly those exist and get press time; they make great targets, too.

But the main problem with the idea of the fundamentalist atheist is that it is used to paint the bad behavior of a few onto the entire philosophy. In researching this, over and over I find people turning from the discussion of Dawkins to Hitler or Stalin, as if atheism was the driving philosophy behind them (sorry, Nomad, it wasn't, any more than Italian Fascism was driven by Catholicism).

The problem as always is with the extremists. But any attempt to paint atheism as a religion is misguided and incorrect. I'm convinced the issue is here is with the behavior, and that's confused with the philosophy and dumped into the echo chamber.

A very reasonable and agreeable article.

P.S. people of which persuasion strap little boxes to their foreheads? I couldn't figure out the reference.

Aw. Thanks! Didn't know about that custom.
And man, is it f-d up or what.

Emphasis mine.

I'm amazed that this thread has fixated on the little box on the forehead part and completely skipped over the postnatal wang surgery part. It's like I don't even know you guys anymore.

It's not a big deal per se, I agree. My remark had more to do not with the gross-out magnitude of the fanatism involved, but with the intricacy and pervasiveness of the Ultra-Orthodox rites, and my own unfamiliarity with this particular one (even though I live/work in environments with high Jewish populations). It always keeps amazing me how well these rites were engineered to ensure preservation and self-perpetuation -- by separating the adherents from the rest of the populace in most of everyday aspects of life and by shephering them into communities where each member can very effectively check (and be checked) others against the observance of the rites.

Not to sound rude, but I am not sure what's more fanatical -- a lifetime of that or, say, a casual self-immolation on Diwali.

Agree with you entirely!

There are sanitary health benefits to male circumcision.

Female circumcision, on the other hand...

There are sanitary benefits to the African Masai tribal coming-of-age custom of bashing their own front teeth out -- they're becoming less prone to gingivitis.

I dont know, there are plenty of people that have foreskins that are perfectly healthy. I actually have never really heard of a situation in which this has become an issue.

And sure, if an adult wants to have it done for those reasons, by all means let them have it done. That is not an excuse for the practice. *edit* on children.

I was trying to tie Fundamentalism to a dogmatic inflexibility that, when the surface is scratched, resorts to bad language and abusive behavior. No one says "That guy has a temper, he's a real fundamentalist!"; that's a dubious linkage.

Just as we expect religious fundamentalists to resort to bluster and abuse when challenged, some of the more public atheists have resorted to the same techniques, for the same reason - they are irritated that someone can actually question what they say. That's the hallmark of what we shorthand as fundamentalism, the raising of dogma over analysis and rational discussion. I understand it's hard to draw the distinction without leaving it open to a simplistic gloss.

I hold that some of the more vocal modern atheists have verged onto dogmatic positions which they hold cannot be questioned. I am no fan of the non-rationality found in a lot of religious thought, but when the same thing crops up in atheist discussions, it should be at least recognized. The whole discussion would be a lot easier if these guys would remember that people are loath to have the emotional foundations of their lives not just questioned, but assaulted, when they come to hear a debate or a lecture.

And mastectomy can greatly reduce the chances of acquiring breast cancer. How many people die each year from dirty penis disease?

This is, I think, exactly what gave rise to the idea. I'm willing to wager that many religious fundamentalists look at that term and ascribe opposition to them to the fact that they're fervent and resolute about their beliefs, and when they see the same attitude from the "enemy camp," they take hold of that term used to describe them and throw it back, primarily because their fundamentalism drives their idealism. That is, the fundamentals they hold to dictates their approach to defending those fundamentals. Their fervent defense of those ideas and the ideas themselves are one in the same. There is nothing about the idea of atheism, on the other hand, that inherently requires a direct, fervent defense of it. In fact, atheism functions on the exact opposite premise, in that it says, if you look at things reasonably, this is the conclusion you will reach. It should, by way of reason, stand entirely on its own, without the need for defense.

Can't we just agree to call them "Atheist Evangelists"?