A new member has raised a concern about atheist fundamentalism in our last meeting.

Hi Bubba - You've raised some interesting points about the last meeting and your feeling that too many of the members of the Detroit Atheists are falling down the black hole of Atheist Fundamentalism. ( See Last Meeting Evaluation page for the complete well thought-out text from Bubba.) Not So! Sometimes we lose sight of freedom of religion and freedom from religion in the need to express our aversion to organized religion. A closer examination of the members will reveal a broad range of ideas about atheism.

Detroit Atheists as a whole is one of the most open, fluid and accepting of all opinions in the entire area. You will be hard-pressed to find the diversity you'll find with us. Please stick around a while and you'll find wonderful, intelligent people who challenge, but never reject freedom of any kind, including religious freedom. And you'll make lots of friends and have a great time.. Viva Detroit Atheists! We're the Best. Mary and Jim

My greatest concern is that I support a group that embraces fundamentalism of any kind. When you look around the world, and you see where the problems come from, they don't come from moderate folks who are just trying to get by. No, they instead come from people with extreme points of view, especially where those points of view are incompatible with other extremes.

For a reasoning behind my point of view, you should know that I am, first and foremost, a libertarian. I believe completely and totally in the power of the constitution of this great nation to do what is best for the people as a whole, and it is because of that document that this nation is the best place on earth. It's not because of our economy, our military, our patriotism, our citizenry, our education, our infrastructure, or any other tangible reason. Our country is the best place on earth because our country allows any citizen, or indeed anyone within our borders, to decide for themselves how they want to live, and what they want to think, and what they choose to endorse.

Our country is great because we can mock our leader openly without fear of reprisal from the secret police. Our country is great because we can worship gods that nobody has ever heard of while smearing our bodies in jelly, just because our god happens to like scones. Our country is great because I can defend a position that others may find absolutely abhorent without fear of state reprisal.

As long as we don't tell other people how to live their lives, our country will allow us to live ours as we see fit (well, for the most part).

As this pertains to atheism, I cannot bring myself to endorse the notion that it is acceptable to tell someone else how to live their life, a concept that is part and parcel to fundamentalism. If atheists can be fundamentalists as well, I don't ascribe to the ideals of atheistic fundamentalism.

Friends of mine say that the greatest threat to the United States is Islamic Fundamentalism, but it's simply not the case. The greatest threat to the United States is CHRISTIAN fundamentalism. The bible belt is just itching to tear up the constitution and institute a state religion that soon will find itself being the center of our nation, and when that happens, we may as well sign ourselves up as the next Iraq, or Iran, or Pakistan or Afghanistan.

However, while this is clearly a problem, simply by moving our position to the extreme opposite end is NOT a solution to the issue at hand. We need to remind christian fundamentalists of two immutable facts: A) History repeats itself, and B) our forefathers came to this land to escape religious persecution.

They created the constitution to protect themselves from exactly the situation that christian fundamentalists are trying to enact as we speak. Simply by opposing them, we are doing nothing more than fueling their fires. We cannot take the opposite position and expect positive results. Rather, we need to take tangential positions and simply point out the fact that IF they are successful in their goals, they will have destroyed the very thing they tried to create in the first place. And then, history would repeat itself, with the country tearing itself apart, and then pilgrims would go and sail away in ships and find a new land and kill the indigenous peoples and have a war of independence and then slavery and a civil war and... well, ok, maybe it wouldn't go EXACTLY like this last time, but you get the picture.

I fear that a position in direct opposition to christian fundamentalism (as atheistic fundamentalism must necessarily take) would lead to the persecution and destruction of atheists in short order. They outnumber us 10 to 1, after all, I don't think the fight would be very long. ;)

I suppose I can see how frustration can lead easily down the path of aversion. Personally, I deal with that sort of thing with humor. For instance, I was laughing my stupid little ass off when Reverend Ted Haggard was caught having gay prostitute orgies and meth benders, after having spent every Monday for the past 8 years advising President Bush on topics of morality on behalf of 30 MILLION evangelical christians, having spent his entire adult life preaching from the pulpit about the sin of drugs and homosexuality (but you have to say each syllable, like "ho-mo-sex-shu-uhl") and THEN having the absolute TAMARITY to claim that after a week of reflection and contemplation, he was no longer gay because Jesus had cured him. Sorry Ted, once you've willingingly taken it in the keester, well, there's pretty much no denying your sexual preference. I told every person who could HEAR me about that story, and even some people who were deaf! (for the record, the gay and drug thing doesn't bother me in the slightest, it's the hypocrisy that amuses me)

As it stands, I'm sure that what I saw was merely frustration coming out in a comfortable environment. We are somewhat stigmatized as a group, the godless amoralistic heathens that we are, after all, so when a group gets together that has this thing in common, it's understandable that some venting occurs.

My only hope is that venting does not lead to action in direct opposition to what is an incurable, and immovable force. Remind christians why america is great. Remind christians why america doesn't need to be changed. Remind christians that the very thing they are trying to destroy is the thing that is giving them the right to try and destroy it.

And, just so you know, I'm prone to long rants online. In case you didn't figure that out.

I too am wary of atheist fundamentalism. I always find it amusing and a little scary that while I'm definitely not churchy enough for people who have a big imaginary friend in the sky, I am also not atheist enough for some atheists. I chalk it up to a human tendency to want to sway others in the direction of what works for oneself -- the ones who find their imaginary friend comforting want to share that with others, and the ones who found salvation in the absense of salvation want to share that too. It's an unfortunate human tendency (especially when we try to do it at the barrel of a gun), but it's been around for a long time and isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

So sorry I missed the meeting on Tuesday! I miss you guys.

Cheril Lin (Snapdragon)

To keep it brief, I agree with Bubba as well. I am very wary of any mentality that is necessarily Us vs Them. At the same time, I do see the importance of not sitting back and *taking it* when things are clearly going wrong. So, as Bubba more eloquently stated, I feel more obligation to stand up as a free American than as "an atheist."

-Dorion

Jeff, I'm so glad that you presented this topic, because it is one one which I needed your motivation to explore. In the last few years, since the recent rise of atheism in the consciousness of Americans, there have been a few people who have accused certain atheists of being fundamentalist atheists. Most of the accusers have been religious people who are hotly opposed to a non-theistic world-view. But there have been some atheists who have criticized other atheists (as you do) of being fundamentalist atheists. Usually these atheistic critics are uncomfortable with the the perceived tone in which their fellow atheists put forward the case for atheism and the end of dogmatism.

Until now, I've been somewhat perplexed by the use of the term "fundamentalist" as an adjective to describe a type of atheism. The use of the term "fundamentalism" came about to describe the beliefs of some early 20th century Christians who held to a strict and literalistic interpretation of the Christian Bible. In my lifetime the word has changed to describe any strict and uncompromising view (fundamentalist conservative, fundamentalist libertarian, etc.). I recommend that you visit Wikipedia for nice summary of the meaning and history of the term (http://en.wikipedia.o....

So now we all know what it means to say that someone or something is fundamentalist. Applied to certain ideas, the word is a pejorative, descriptive, or simply misapplied. It is this latter category into which the term falls as it is applied to atheism. There is no such thing as fundamentalist atheism. Atheism is the conclusion that there are no gods. It is brought about from the available evidence and the application of reason. It doesn't get any more "fundamental." There is no place for interpretation. In much the same way, we are all "fundamentalist" when it comes to gravity.

There is the possibility that atheist critics intend the term as a pejorative. If this the case, then again the term is essentially misapplied. There are atheists whose respect for the truth is such that they feel obligated to share the truth with others. It is these atheists who sometimes get labeled fundamentalist. But again, you can no more be a fundamentalist for the truth than you can for gravity.

Jeff and Cheril Lin, in your entries you imply that you disapprove of atheists who would use force to impose the truth. I wonder, where are these militant atheists? Are there members of Detroit Atheists who propose such a thing? I think not. It would be just as ridiculous therefore to hold forth an intolerance for those who would use force to impose Disney cartoons. You object to nothing of consequence.

Let me end by paraphrasing Barry Goldwater's famous 1964 speech: I would remind you that extremism in the defense of atheism is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of truth is no virtue!

Jeff, I took issue with some of your statements of fact in your above entry that I did not want to shoehorn into my post above:

"Our country is the best place on earth because our country allows any citizen, or indeed anyone within our borders, to decide for themselves how they want to live, and what they want to think, and what they choose to endorse."

What about Canada, England, France, Japan, South Korea, etc.? It is a very parochial view of the freedoms that we enjoy. Also, there are very strict limits as to where and how we may live. We Americans are also subject to state punishments for certain thoughts and endorsements. You should qualify such statements about our freedoms as you've made above.

"...our forefathers came to this land to escape religious persecution. They created the constitution to protect themselves from exactly the situation that christian fundamentalists are trying to enact as we speak."

My forefathers came here to escape famine. It is a common error that is still taught to children that most early American settlers were fleeing religious tyranny. True, a minority of the settlers were here for religious reasons. But the vast majority of settlers were business speculators and indentured servants. This was the case for hundreds of years of Early American colonial history.

Hi Bubba, Cheryl Lin and Dorian- In complete agreement with you on almost all points. Thanks for the thoughtful and provocative ideas you took the time to post. More from all of you guys in the future, please! Cheryl Lin- we're really going to miss you from both the Meet-up and the DVD parties. Sorry you must move. Mary and Jim

Chris, Once again I am in close agreement with you on the last post. But once again I am puzzled a little by your first. You paraphrase Goldwater in a very nice way. And obviously you are against violence. But what do these sentences mean? Once again I do not want to make assumptions. Can you please spell out what you think should be done when you cite extemism in the pursuit of atheism as a virtue and moderation in the pursuit of truth no virtue? Unless you have a definite agenda, these are mere words with a nice ring, but little information behind them. My agenda would be something like this- present atheism as an intelligent and truthful belief ( and in the lack of proof of there being no god; atheism cannot be proven-we all know that.), bring up our children as atheists, proclaim our atheism where it counts, support atheist organizations that take the religious fundamentalists to court. press for the changing of laws that would restrict our atheist and agnostic beliefs, demonstrate against religious fanaticism at different events, support atheist thinkers and writers by buying their books and DVDs, attend events that are given by atheists, and etc.etc.etc. I probably haven't covered all the bases, but I want to stop before I bore everybody to death. Okay, so what's your agenda of "extremism in the pursuit of atheism?" Mary

So now we all know what it means to say that someone or something is fundamentalist. Applied to certain ideas, the word is a pejorative, descriptive, or simply misapplied. It is this latter category into which the term falls as it is applied to atheism. There is no such thing as fundamentalist atheism. Atheism is the conclusion that there are no gods. It is brought about from the available evidence and the application of reason. It doesn't get any more "fundamental." There is no place for interpretation. In much the same way, we are all "fundamentalist" when it comes to gravity.

This is an interpretation that we shall likely have to agree to disagree about. Fundamentalism, in the broadest definition, is simply a notion that you are unerringly right and the other is totally wrong, without question of proof or evidence, and that you have a willingness to fight to show your position is correct. Atheists may be just as fundamentalist as any other group in the tenacity with which they present their position. In my not so humble opinion.

There is the possibility that atheist critics intend the term as a pejorative. If this the case, then again the term is essentially misapplied. There are atheists whose respect for the truth is such that they feel obligated to share the truth with others. It is these atheists who sometimes get labeled fundamentalist. But again, you can no more be a fundamentalist for the truth than you can for gravity.

There is a logical argument to be made that says that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You are arguing YOUR version of the truth as if it were proven already. I'm not saying that I disagree with your assessment, I believe as you do, that there is no god at all. But the simple reality is that we live in a world where such a thing is unprovable. You cannot,
logically, disprove the non-existance of something.

Atheism differs from gravity in that gravity is measurable. Belief is not measurable or quantifiable.

Jeff and Cheril Lin, in your entries you imply that you disapprove of atheists who would use force to impose the truth. I wonder, where are these militant atheists? Are there members of Detroit Atheists who propose such a thing? I think not. It would be just as ridiculous therefore to hold forth an intolerance for those who would use force to impose Disney cartoons. You object to nothing of consequence.

As I have previously stated, history repeats itself. For militant atheism, one only need to take a look at communist russia. Now, I'll grant you that atheism in that instance was a means to an end, rather than the end itself, but still, this is an instance where atheism was used by the body politic to further its own ends, and those were military ends. If you think it is ridiculous to think that history would not repeat itself in THAT way, let's look at something a little more contemporary.

This current Iraq war is an unpopular fight against an unseen enemy hiding in plain sight, the civilians of Iraq. Does this sound familiar? It should. It's Vietnam, Part II. I have heard time and time again from president after president, including Dubya himself, "This will not be another Vietnam." Except that it is. History repeats itself, and we are doomed to repeat our mistakes if we do not LEARN from history.

Just because it's UNLIKELY to happen doesn't mean it is IMPOSSIBLE to happen.

Christopher- I couldn't agree with you more, although it stings a bit that you neglected to mention Finland ;). You seem to be one to do your own research, rather than simply accepting what's been fed to you- a most atheist virtue. My family also came to this country to escape famine, and I'm tired of being bombarded with the baseless idea that we all came here for religious freedom.

Bubba/Jeff- I do agree with you on some points, and I'm trying not to veer too far off topic, but on one part of your post I simply can't hold my tongue..... plus I adore a pleasant debate. Where you think that Christian Fundamentalism is the greatest threat to America, I feel that the biggest threat to this country is our blindly pro-American attitude. I think that we've developed a habit of thumping our chests and chanting about being #1, but in what, exactly? Defense spending, I'd imagine. Perhaps even prison population. But the world beyond our borders contains much more than Iran and Afghanistan. For a long time, I've been seriously considering whether or not I want to even stay here. With the American dollar becoming more and more useless, I'm worried that I'll be stuck here before I decide, just like I'm stuck in my current home (I hate you, Michigan economy!). But my point is, how can we ever improve upon our faults if we're not willing to admit to them?

I hope that you don't hold to your first impressions about this group. Our ideas about the proper atheist attitudes are as different as our ideas about politics. Some of us would probably agree on almost nothing, but I think that's really the beauty of this group. At every meeting I've attended, we disagree, respect one another, and have a great time. Come back and speak out at the points that offend you! It'll be more fun for me :).

-Sarah

Mary, I like your "agenda." There are those who might call it fundamentalist or extremist. I would not.

You misquote me (twice). I paraphrased Goldwater, writing "that extremism in the DEFENSE of atheism is no vice!" Was your intention to ask me what it means to defend atheism? I think you know, but I will try to spell it out. To defend atheism is to resist efforts to diminish it. Your "agenda" includes a list of ways that a person could act to defend atheism. Were I to write a list of ways to defend atheism they would very much resemble the list of things a person should do to defend other important ideals, such as personal liberty. Sometimes the defense of atheism requires sacrifice, but often it does not. I could not realistically be expected to complete a thorough list of recommended action that would cover every circumstance. I must trust that atheists know what is right and what is true and would defend atheism in a reasonable and justifiable manner appropriate to the situation.

In any case, I didn't know that my rhetoric was so vague that it was hard to understand my meaning. I did not know that I was required to set forth a comprehensive plan for atheism in order to successfully argue that there is no such thing as a fundamentalist atheism. If you would like to change the topic to "What should atheist's do?", I will try to be as plain and clear as I can.