Are the "New Atheists" As Bad as Christian Fundamentalists?

I'm not sure what is meant by 'New' Atheist, but the word 'Fundamenatalist/Fundie' can indeed relate to atheists also.

I think the religious fundamentalist attacks the minds of the people while the atheist fundamentalist attacks the religious fundamentalist with the same fervour in the Creationist/ID debates, but it is seen elsewhere in other debates.

We then get fundamentalists of one sect attacking those of other sects while even in science others are attached with the same fundamental fervour.

I think fundamentalism comes about when one's opinions refuse to be swayed, even when confronted by overwhelming evidence, and the other party is attacked so as to retain the refuge afforded by those befiefs.

The emphasis is on the word 'belief'.

When in doubt i prefer an agreed to definition rather than an invented one:
 
Fundamentalism refers to a belief in a strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), sometimes as a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life.^[1][2][3][4]

Which is basically what I said.

The emphasis is on the word 'belief'.

All the athiests i know and read don't "believe" in a basic set of principals.

Herein lies a difficulty.
I have seen atheists berate and attack Christians with the same ferocity as does a Christian Fundie attack atheists. When asked to support their claims they post about how evolution explains away God and how they believe evolution to be true.

This clearly is not what is claimed by Evolutionary Theory, and the atheist in that position is practising a belief he hasn't studied objectively himself, relgating himself to the same level as the Christian Fundamentalist.

I note that the OP mentions Dawkins a lot, and while I disagree a lot with Dawkins' approach I would hesitate to call him an 'Atheist Fundie'.

Otter #5 "All the athiests i know and read don't "believe" in a basic set of principals."
.
Really.
As I recall, I've met just one person IRL who actively and proudly professed to atheism, and HE believed "it's ALL a bunch of hooey."  And HE frankly admitted that he didn't actually KNOW, so I believed him.
.
In post #3 you stated, "When in doubt i prefer an agreed to definition rather than an invented one."  Does that apply to the word "believe"... or is this where you make an exception?

Betty

Anthropal #7 "I note that the OP mentions Dawkins a lot, and while I disagree a lot with Dawkins' approach I would hesitate to call him an 'Atheist Fundie'."
.
As it turns out, the article cited in the OP is quite lengthy (nine pages) and Dawkins is merely the 'warm-up'.  Daniel Dennett is treated quite warmly, but it is Christopher Hitchens that receives the brunt of Frank Schaeffer's opprobrium.  Given Mr. Schaeffer's life experience and accomplishments, I find that his appraisal is quite accurate.
.
Betty

well this atheist hasn't studied anything don't need books to tell me what I already know for myself, course I'm not a rabid Atheist unless I run in to a rabid fundamentalist...

The only book I needed to read was the bible it convenced me as a kid that there was no God just men who made up shit to manipulate the minds of the masses through fear....  sad, I always wonderd why all those religious freaks used 'god' as there BOOGIE man well the more I studied the more I found out why and when the perverions of man became mistaken for doctrine....

"Seek ye the truth with a deligence and ye shall know me and my word, for many a man shall arise amunst you professing to know me and my word they neither know of me nor my word....."

I'm not a fan of any ORGANIZED religion they all seek to enslave there followers minds, our way or the highway is the first sign of that, we'er the only ones to 'KNOW' the truth etc...  same rethoric...

spirtuality I have no problem with closed minds I do ....  and fundamentalist of any group are a pain in the ass to deal with cause they ignore facts (to suit -support there own twisted beliefs) and logic and reason no arguing with a closed mind... 

Although I have presented my "philosophy" of atheism under the soubriquet of PRIMISM before, there may be some who have not become familiar with it.

Prior to this, the Universe was a pristine example of pure chaos evolving to cosmos that we perceive according to the laws of physics with no supernaturality about it, within it or supporting it. There was nothing but matter/energy, the space it occupied and the physical laws that they abided by. Matter/energy are different forms of the stuff that permeates our Universe. This stuff can be neither created nor destroyed. This was the original and prime condition of the Universe

Primism is a form of atheism that eschews the negativity inherent in the word ATHEIST, where an A is tacked on to the front of THEIST. Such negativity led to claims that without theism atheists could not exist. I sought a positive and practical solution and found it in turning atheism into a doctrine of its own with no implied dependence on the quandary of a god's existence, a doctrine so simple, so credible, so fitting with what we as humankind know, that counter-argument flounders and fumbles around in religious repetition. Gods permeated our Universe only when humankind invented them.  

This view is simplicity itself and therefore wears the imprimatur of William of Ockham. Religious belief in gods etc can make no such claim. This view is subject to scientific falsification or verification. Religious beliefs in gods etc here also is barred from such a claim. This conviction has a precedence measured in billions of years over that of religious beliefs in gods etc which is measured in a few hundred thousand years.

Humankind has not outgrown its primitive superstitions. In the deep recesses of its brain, inherited from our non-human ancestors, are instincts and dark things of which it is quite unaware and which rarely surface over our more conscious self. Religious belief plumbs those deep recesses. It is the expression and recognition　of fear of the unexplainable.

Humankind is not as far removed from its primitive genesis as it would like to think. It has some distance to travel before it can shuck off the yoke of obsequious religiosity. The result is as inevitable as is the occurrence of life all through this Universe. If our genetic diversity is sufficient to the task we have an untold number of years to become those gods that we dream of and yearn after today.

Religion as a human phenomenon will have an age assigned to it in human history but there will be little of significance to mark it.
From thence forward all civilisation will be atheistic or PRIME. Providing we survive the primitive superstitious fears we inherited, we will continue into the original and prime condition of the Universe having survived a great test of our worth to endure and progress into the Cosmos. It is interesting to speculate rationally and logically and it is vital to our interests that we so speculate. It is the only way that our progress can be assured. It will not be accomplished on our knees tearfully beseeching guidance from a figment of shackled imaginations.
　
Biggles, Prime

Raven: well this atheist hasn't studied anything don't need books to tell me what I already know for myself,
The only book I needed to read was the bible it convenced me as a kid that there was no God just men who made up shit to manipulate the minds of the masses through fear.

Make your mind up raven one moment you don`t need books to tell you what you already know, next you read the bible and it convinced you there was no god ROLMAO

  Prior to this, the Universe was a pristine example of pure chaos evolving to cosmos that we perceive according to the laws of physics with no supernaturality about it, within it or supporting it. There was nothing but matter/energy, the space it occupied and the physical laws that they abided by. Matter/energy are different forms of the stuff that permeates our Universe. This stuff can be neither created nor destroyed. This was the original and prime condition of the Universe

Can you prove this or is it just your belief?  you appear to asserting it as a given fact.

Primism is a form of atheism that eschews the negativity inherent in the word ATHEIST, where an A is tacked on to the front of THEIST. Such negativity led to claims that without theism atheists could not exist.

It can be shown most like you biggles don`t exist unless to attack theists, otherwise the ones you speak of would not trouble themselves to join web forums that ridicule theists daily.

I sought a positive and practical solution and found it in turning atheism into a doctrine of its own with no implied dependence on the quandary of a god's existence, a doctrine so simple, so credible, so fitting with what we as humankind know, that counter-argument flounders and fumbles around in religious repetition. Gods permeated our Universe only when humankind invented them. 

Again as evolution theory and darwinism could not show or explain scientifically or otherwise the origin of the universe your blustering is moot

This view is simplicity itself and therefore wears the imprimatur of William of Ockham. Religious belief in gods etc can make no such claim. This view is subject to scientific falsification or verification.

When has science ruled out the existence of a "God" I am eager to know?

 Religious beliefs in gods etc here also is barred from such a claim. This conviction has a precedence measured in billions of years over that of religious beliefs in gods etc which is measured in a few hundred thousand years.

Billions of years no less! is asserted by Biggles,  wow, it is a theory he builds his belief upon and accurate scientific carbon dating only goes back so far, certainly not billions of years {getting carried away again Biggles? you sound and read fanatical fundie in denialism} You sound like a fundamentalist Atheist so why deny here you are? Why deny it unless you have something to hide?

the rest and entirity of the rest of your post is one gigantic rant against the believers of any faith or god without any evidence.
　

Ah, my dear Mr. Biggles, what a pleasure it is to be treated to your exuberant yet highly stylized prose.  While no one can doubt your sincerity, I think it is only fair to offer a contrasting view that may identify for the less-than-discriminating reader some of your more obvious unwarranted assumptions.
.
In post #11, you say, "PRIMISM is based upon the legitimate premise that all gods, ghosts, demons, spirits etc appeared as the desperate last resort of a primitive but burgeoning imagination in a hominid primate like Homo sapiens a few hundred thousand years ago."  As a sales pitch that is a very good beginning, but as a foundation for dispassionate analysis of human religious phenomena the deficiencies are palpable.  If the menagerie of entities you cite are indeed the product of "a primitive but burgeoning imagination", isn't it rather more likely that they came to mind as the FIRST tentative attempts to explain rational causes for complex events rather than "the desperate last resort"?  Such a complete reversal of logic does not auger well for the credibility of the body of your thesis.
.
From that inauspicious beginning, you eagerly charge straight into a beautiful straw man fallacy by declaiming the truism, "Gods permeated our Universe only when humankind invented them."  "Gods" are as easily deposed as exalted; religion has been doing that continuously for much longer than any records remember.  I'm disappointed that you choose to belabor the obvious and ignore the deeper aspects of human spirituality that have proven thus far to be universal.
.
And finally, to wrap up your ambitious but painfully errant conceit, you resort to yet another truism, "Humankind is not as far removed from its primitive genesis as it would like to think."  It's sad to say but that pretty much consigns your lofty theme to the realm of fantasy.
.
Nice try though, and to borrow a tagline from Jack Horkheimer, "Keep on looking up!"

Betty

Solaris:  Make your mind up raven one moment you don`t need books to tell you what you already know, next you read the bible and it convinced you there was no god ROLMAO

-solaris

no I said what I ment,  there is no god to be found in a bookI have studied many religions in 'my' search I never found 'god' in any of them... 

lmao apparently for you learning is something you don't think necissary in order to form an oppinion on something?????  me on the other hand if I render a judgment on something in order form and opinion on the subect at hand I find it necessary to study it hence 'my' search for 'god' in varrious denominations and in the books they claim as the foundation of their 'beliefs'...  my search entailed learning, it is on that which I base my opinion...

but even as a child it was easy for me to see through the bullshit and all the contradictions...  all I need do is watch the fine upstanding christians in our town...  they lead by example, like my brothers best bud Tye the Luthren Ministers son who hung himself cause he couldn't bare to face telling his dad who used to beat him about getting a B for a grade in chemistry, or the other hypocritesa drinking on saturday night but somehow managing to pull there asses outta bed for church on Sunday morning,  ya great examples

but I suppose that you'll say but aren't we all human?, yep sure as hell are we lie cheat steal etc you name it...  and yet even knowing that it is our nature to do so some still don't get it we are what we are ...

dosen't matter if your a live and kicking in 1221 b.c. or 2112 a.d. either way people still lie cheat and steal and the people that tell the bigest lies general get away with it the best.....

Anthropal #7 "I note that the OP mentions Dawkins a lot, and while I disagree a lot with Dawkins' approach I would hesitate to call him an 'Atheist Fundie'."
.
As it turns out, the article cited in the OP is quite lengthy (nine pages) and Dawkins is merely the 'warm-up'.  Daniel Dennett is treated quite warmly, but it is Christopher Hitchens that receives the brunt of Frank Schaeffer's opprobrium.  Given Mr. Schaeffer's life experience and accomplishments, I find that his appraisal is quite accurate.
.
Betty

-bettypickering1

Betty, I have come across some of their work, and sometimes I wonder if they are actually doing more harm than good with their approach. Dawkins is a little different.

It is really tiresome to hear this claim that the New Atheists are themselves "fundamentalists".  If shown actual evidence for the existence of a god, they could be persuaded to change their minds.  They are not dogmatic in believing that a god does not exist; they are simply not inclined to believe a god exists without evidence to support it.  In this way they are very different from religious fundamentalists who are dogmatic in their belief in something without evidence.

What really bothers some folks about the New Atheists is that they are willing to actually speak openly in criticism of religious belief.  They don't just politely keep their thoughts to themselves as many religious believers would prefer.  They are announcing openly that emperor has no clothes and that makes believers uncomfortable and, frankly, embarrassed.  The New Atheists are refusing to accept the unwritten rule that one shouldn't criticize religious belief because, for some indefensible reason, religious belief is supposed to be given a measure of respect not afforded to any other ways of thinking.

So are the New Atheists "bad"?  Only in the minds of those that think religious beliefs should be given a polite pass from rational scrutiny and public criticism.  Are they "fundamentalist"?  Not even close.

Anthropal #17 "Betty, I have come across some of their work, and sometimes I wonder if they are actually doing more harm than good with their approach. Dawkins is a little different."
.
Please forgive me, but I'm having a hard time sorting out a clear sense of what you're trying to say.  I'd hate to be wrong if I assumed that by "they" you refer to the 'New Atheists' named in the OP, but that's my best guess.  Perhaps you could be a little more definite as to whom you are talking about, and what you consider to constitute "more harm than good"?  That would go a long way in establishing for me how Dawkins might be "a little different."  Thanks.
.
Betty

I have layed by my wife with our first born baby lying between us. I have done this when the lighting and everything seemed to be just right. Looking at our child and looking at her (and I'm quit sure she was doing the same) with the laughter of our little girl as we tickled her and such,..putting her in her bed and returning to make love with mutual feelings to make another. I lay beside her for a moment and drift in my thoughts,......and I'm supposed to understand that we're only some altered electrified dirt who's purpose is to..... "WHAT"???  Can't atheist understand that some people can't accept evolution, and for what I can see as very understandable reasons. Futher more because of some of these reasons you can't say they're "absolutely" wrong.  Personally there are many veiws that I like from the atheist and many ways that I like of the religious but I know I will never get both. 

It may be that both need something on there side,...for the atheist it is education and time,....for the religious it is their god, but one thing is certain,... the "fundamentalist" for either side can/has cause/d great turmoil and suffering that we would never want to see again. 

Sam

Oh yeah,...Hi Wrenna