First lets define "
Fundamental Atheism" as:
The belief that the tenets of atheism are literally true, and that the belief is based on logic and rational thinking after reviewing the applicable evidence.
This is to distinguish this sub-group from the broader group atheism, defined as:
atheism - n
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
atheism - n
1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism]
2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
The fact is that atheism is based on belief and thus taking this belief as fundamental truth makes it fundamentalism on the same order as fundamental literalist YEC beliefs.
Now let us consider the problem of "
Conflicting Ideas:"
Everybody has a {world view} that is a conceptual map of reality: they have an idea of what the {real universe} is like, based on their {beliefs, experiences, ideas and what they have learned}. Some of these {world views} are better than others in actually mapping concepts to points of reality, and the better they are the less conflict there is between any concept and reality.
Problems with the conceptual map occur when a conflict arises between the {world view} and a {concept}: either the {concept} is rejected as "nonsense" or it is incorporated into a revised {world view}
The fundamentalist rejects the notion that the {world view} needs to change when any such conflict occurs, thus when a {concept} conflicts with the {world view} the {concept} is rejected: it
cannot be true.
Obviously on these forums we see that YEC and other absolutist literal fundies have this problem with several branches of science wherein a line is crossed that conflicts with their {world view} and the {concept} is rejected, but the same thing happens when this conflict occurs with any other fundamentalist {world view} when the notion of changing the {world view} is rejected.
Take for instance, the following concept that was raised on the (now closed)
{DHA's Wager} thread (click):
ABSENT proof that {A} exists AND
ABSENT proof that {A} does NOT exist
What is the most logical position:
(1) YES {A} exists! OR
(2) NO {A} does NOT exist! OR
(3) We don't know if {A} exists or not (Note: the above is the original form of the concept, in later posts (3) was {modified\simplified} to "I don't know"
The fundamental atheist rejects the concept as valid because to be logically correct
and an atheist {he/she/they} need to be able to pick both (2) and (3).
Thus we see the fundamental atheist insisting that there is a 4th answer "(4) none of the above because I need more information".
When you look at the actual meaning of what they are saying though, what you see is "
I don't {have enough information to} know."
The fundamental atheist is really picking option (3) while insisting that {he/she/they} are not picking option (3), and this
equivocation on the question is due to {his/her/their} fundamental desire to be able to pick (2) at the same time.
The fundamental atheist also uses a lot of the same kinds of arguments that a fundamental YEC uses: argument from incredulity, strawman examples, claiming that {this one example (an "exception to the rule")} proves the
whole concept is wrong, deflecting the topic to other points altogether, etcetera, etcetera. What they don't do is answer the question (even to themselves).
It is worth noting that not one theist had issue with that post, and I take this to be evidence that the available theists knew that they believed "(1) Yes {A} exists" but also understood that this belief was based on faith and not fact (and thus not constrained to meet the test of logic). I assume that there are also several atheists that recognize that their belief that "(2) No {A} does not exist" is based on faith and not logic. Both these groups have world views where faith exists aside from logic (and Agnostics are sitting pretty in the cat-bird seat).
Enjoy.
note to admin: I am thinking {Faith and Belief} forum for this
EvC Forum: Faith and Belief
while it is an outgrowth of {DHA's Wager} it is not a continuation of that thread or any debates there, but is to focus on the concepts of {fundamental atheism} and {concepts in conflict with a world view}