Has Atheism become Fundamentalist?

It seems that every time an article about religion is posted online or a comment is made on twitter or even when somebody professes to having faith or a  religious inclination, a torrent of abusive messages follow from people who claim allegiance to the new atheist movement. Of course if you read through these comments you see the same arguments rehashed over and over again.

They consist of accusing the religious of having about as much logic for their faith as they would for a teapot orbiting the sun or a flying spaghetti monster or in fact fairies at the bottom of the garden. This argument is called Russell’s teapot after Bertrand Russell the philosopher who first postulated this thought. The argument is solid in a GCSE level philosophy paper but attempting to disprove something as complex as God with a simple logical absurdity is a sign of intellectual weakness.

As you know when you make the claim that the thing you are arguing is not true, it is very easy to disprove and therefore is not a comparable argument. It is an attempt to shake the faith of a believer by postulating that their faith is as ridiculous as fairies at the bottom of the garden.


It is a tactic used by Richard Dawkins in his famous God Delusion. It is a widely read piece and it viciously attacks faith and religion as well as the notion of God. Those who appreciate the book use its arguments to attack those with religious faith with the ferocity of a rabid Rottweiler imagining that they are instrumental in the movement towards a non religious utopia, a materialistic paradise where there would be no war or civil strife as society would have rid itself of the one key divider that destroys all good, religion. Dawkins has also told his supporters that the burden of proof is on the religious and it is they not the non-believers who have to justify their position in a debate.

When they do come up with scientific facts such as the finely tuned universe, the problems we have with explaining creation, why life exists at all and the advancements that are being made by quantum physicists that support the possibility of God, atheists deride it as merely a simplistic God-of-the-gaps answer.

You might quote Occam’s razor that demands that the simplest theory be assumed to be correct until a greater one be discovered.

However, if humanity used this as a core principal, explorers would never have sailed from Europe as they believed the earth was flat; the sun would still be thought to evolve around the earth and we almost certainly would not have experienced anywhere near the scientific discoveries that mankind has produced in the last few millennia. It is also a dud theory because God is often the simple answer to the great questions of creation. Quite the double-edged razor it seems. However, as most credible scientists will admit, we are a long way from being able to answer some of the key questions about our existence and therefore to rule out any possibility of divinity is in itself an act of faith.


It is like a religious  belief, a belief that does not have the evidence required yet to support it fully.

This is why people say atheism is a religion (and please don’t reply with the tired “atheism is a religion as abstinence is a sex position” argument): it is a set of universal principals defined by the belief that there is no God. It is the promotion of that position of faith and the desire to convert all others to that position of faith that makes new-atheism like religion in its nature.

I read on one forum once someone saying “I don’t believe in Santa any more: does that make me a fundamental non-Santa follower?” I would reply: “No it doesn’t.” However, if you walked around demanding that no-one should believe in Santa and that all children who did were imbeciles and the fact that you have to be made aware that others do believe in Santa was an affront to your human rights, then I would respond with: “Yes, you are a fundamental non-Santa follower”.

If you actively campaigned against sexuality in all forms I would say you were fundamentally abstinent.

So it is the charge against this breed of very vocal atheism in its firm belief that all others are living in ignorance and that their beliefs are harmful to themselves and the world around them, that faiths and beliefs that have existed for thousands years and whose followers have been some of the most intelligent men who have ever lived (and please: intellectuals did not all suddenly turn atheist after Darwin, who himself did not profess himself an atheist but an agnostic), are sordid and evil and are threatening to mankind.

Now, before we damn all religion as evil and squalid, let us cast our eyes back on humanities least religious period the 20th century.

Atom Bomb

The greatest evils committed my mankind including the holocaust, the Stalinist purges, the atrocities of Mao, the killing fields of Cambodia and the invention of the nuclear weapon, were perpetrated in overtly secular societies where the notion of being accountable to something greater than ourselves has become redundant.

They were not conducted by the Vatican, the Church of England, the Supreme Leader of Iran, any other Muslims or Jews they were man’s and man’s alone, committed without a thought to the divine.

These atrocities were not committed in the name of atheism and any religious theorist who says otherwise is mistaken. However, they were committed in overtly secular states where religion was either relegated to background status or was actively discouraged.

Without God, mankind is no longer sacred and without that status we are free to do to others what our own consciences tell us is permissible and there is nothing more subjective than the human conscience. Any sort of fundamentalism is dangerous, especially when it concerns something as complex and as wonderful as life and its potential meaning.

There is a chance one party is right and the other wrong there is a real chance that we all are wrong and we not understand our existence in the way we thought we did. Such debates should be considered and should not be relegated to the realm of the keyboard warrior recycling old philosophical ideas in parrot fashion be you theist or atheist.

Let us be civil and open to new ideas for surely that is the truest form of enlightenment to be open to all debate even if you at heart disagree.  Any closed-mindedness is a form of ignorance and is, at its heart, fundamentalist.

Samuel Kerr


  1. Atheists are trying to spread rationnal thought through logical arguments and debate. We are in no way using the initiation of force, therefore this is in no way immoral or against any human rights. Atheists are not claiming that false beliefs can’t be useful, we claim that they are not true and that their usefulness can be achieved by alternative rationnal methods that do not require any belief of any supernatural phenomena. While we can’t prove that God does not exist through empirical evidence, we can prove logically that God isn’t needed to explain anything, and we can prove logically that God does not solve the problem of causality. Saying that the laws of physics requires a creator does not explain why the creator does not require a creator, and saying that the creator does not require a creator is the same as saying that the laws of physics doesn’t require a creator. Religious beliefs and dogmas is also a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge inhibitor of progress, and in order to solve the major human problems, we need to progress and get out of the status quo, therefore we have to eradicate religions and other belief systems, but of course only by using rationnal arguments and reason, and not the initiation of force. The main difference between atheists and false-belief systems is that our primary goal is to create thinkers, as opposed to followers.

  2. The problem I have with this Sam is that you are asking Atheists to be tolerant of people who not only waste their lives but are also brainwashing their children and are fuelling at least parts of the atrocities going on around the world. We can not go on like this. I am often totally embarrassed that so many humans have not moved past the need for a supernatural being watching over them all of the time; why?

    • Rob, I can find lots of Christian, Muslim and other religious charities alleviating suffering but I cannot find any atheistic ones which do. Is this because atheists believe in the creed of evolution by natural selection, which means that the sooner the weak go to the wall the better for all of us???

      • Once again you make the assumption that atheism is a creed. It is not. You might as well say that there are no pipe smokers charities that are alleviating suffering. The fact that you are or are not an atheist has no bearing on your charitable works,any more than smoking a pipe has. Religious charities, alongside their good work, also attempt to promulgate the credos of whatever sect they are controlled by. Atheists just help people, God or Apollo or Krishna, have nothing to do with their efforts. They simply give, and expect no quid pro quo,

  3. Being religious is simply a waste of time. We do not know which religion is correct, as there is no indicator. Therefore, picking a religion, which is hard enough as you get raised into a religion, is absolutely arbitrary. What a waste of intellectual ressources. This odd kind of behaviour is not for me, but everybody is free to practise it differently. However, if others believes beginn to influence my life, because religious groups and opinions find their way into government, I cannot accept that and I will become very intolerant indeed.

  4. How does somebody so clearly intelligent end up so fucking thick?

    This has to be the most under-researched piece of shit I have ever read. Again we Atheists are blamed for Hitlerism. The author is a good writer, good with words, it’s just a shame he can not think for himself.

    This is the Oath taken by officers of the Wehrmacht……
    “I swear by God this sacred oath that to the Leader of the German empire and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, I shall render unconditional obedience and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath.”

    From page 46 of Mein Kampf…..
    “And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard
    against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord.”

    On the military belts it said “God with us”

    Hitler was not an atheist.

    • Mein Kampf was written when he was imprisoned and he still tried to appease Christian thinking. He also made a pact with the Pope,the ” Concordat” which is still working in Germany and raises tax for churches. But the longer he governed the more he moved away from Christianity. He introduced ” Gleichschaltung” in which every church had to answer to the state. Later he only talked of “Vorhersehung” , which had nothing to do with God. The SS belts might have had God written on it, but he ruthlessly persecuted many Christians and many lost their jobs like the Jews.Priests ended up in Concentration Camps.
      He definately wasn’t a Christian. The point is that he constructed his own faith around the “Führer and some Germanic myth”…
      You might not call him an atheist, but he was pretty close. He believed in a kind of Germanic Übermensch.

    • As the overwhelming evidence is that Hitler was not Christian then the question is WHAT did he call God? Whatever it was, it was not what the major religions call God.

      This is an interesting program

      CPR should be wary of accusing others of ignorance: one of the oldest tricks in the book is to use language in a cynical and misleading way in order to dupe people into doing what you want them to do. The EVIDENCE is that Hitler was hell-bent on annihilating Christians as well as Jews, but he needed to use the word ‘God’ (note the WORD, not the supernatural being) as a stopgap in his haste for power.

      • Please stop this ignorant nonsense and check your facts.
        Adolf Hitler said, and I quote “The National Socialist State professes its allegiance to positive Christianity. It will be its honest endeavour to protect both the great Christian Confessions in their rights, to secure them from interference with their doctrines, and in their duties to constitute a harmony with the views and the exigencies of the State of to-day.
        Speech 26 June 1934; from Norman H. Baynes, ed. (1969). The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939. 1. New York: Howard Fertig. p. 385.

        Or if that is still unconvincing he doesn’t mince his words here:
        “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.” Speech 12 April 1922; Baynes 1942, pp. 19–20

        So Hitler was a self confessed Christian. Get over it.

        Don’t get hung up on personalities, just because Hitler was a Catholic doesn’t mean Catholics are fascist dictators. Pinochet in Chile is another murdering fascist Catholic dictator, that still doesn’t make all Catholics murdering fascist dictators. That is patently stupid. So why attempt the same argument with atheists? Stalin was a Catholic too, he even trained for five years to become a priest, although he didn’t finish his studies. This still doesn’t make Catholics brutal murderers, that being said this clearly shows that being religious in no way mitigates against being a brutal murderer. Even Pol Pot was a Theravedra Bhuddist.

        Your arguments are specious and your attempts to disparage atheist’s criticism of an unquestioning belief in the supernatural by associating them with mass murderers, who just happened to be Christian anyway, is childish.

  5. As usual with an article on this theme it is filed with inaccuracy and fallacy. Have a read and see how many you can spot! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies.

    Did the Twentieth Century create the military atrocity? NO.
    Millions have been killed over the centuries by states and tribes dominated by particular religions, the strength of the atrocity often fuelled by their religious bigotry. Atheism isn’t a creedo, it is a state of not being religious. If you were to draw a Venn diagram of global religions then Atheism is the “everything else” not contained in the circles. Also secular is not atheist, it merely denotes a state not dominated by a particular religion’s strictures (TT put it better, below).
    One of the main problems is that religion has often (mostly?) held a dominant position in the power structures of the nation state, where questioning it could involve you being attended to by some the cruellest and most vicious dregs that humanity has spawned, the result being an awful and lingering death. Those days are over and we are free to question the rationality of the supernatural without fear of torture. All we do as atheists is to question the rationality of an unquestioning faith in anything, but especially omnipotent supernatural whimsy being the basis of the entire universe.
    The religious should be asked these questions and be forced to justify their position, as the whole of the rational word has had to do, and continues to do. If you don’t like this, then that is unfortunate, your days of torturing us into silence are over.
    Now, prepare to justify your faith in the eyes of our children!

    • Interestingly, the discoveries of quantum physics are moving us on from rationality to paradox. The foundations of atheism are about to be shaken!!

      • Don’t be daft. There are no “Foundations of Atheism”. It is simply an absence of theism, the absence of a belief in a deity.

  6. “it is a set of universal principals defined by the belief that there is no God.”

    Many of your points stand out to me as being inaccurate, but this one in particular annoys me quite a bit. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god (or other form of deity). Equally, theism is just a belief in a God with no direct universal principles sewn on immediately. The specific principles arise within individual religious groups or irreligious patterns of thoughts, not from the view of whether or not a God exists.

    Additionally, to call the societies where the 20th century atrocities occured as ‘secular’ is to misunderstand what secularism is. Secularism is about showing no overwhelming preference for any sector of society above other sectors: (it may appear anti-religious as religion has for so long been the dominating sector of western society). The regimes previously in question showed radical preference for their leader and the perceived inerrancy of their judgements (I’ll let you make all the links yourself).

    Whilst Richard Dawkins and other New Atheists might annoy you a fair bit, and it is only fair that they receive criticism just as we are sceptical of all people, it is vital to get your facts right. I’ve only pointed out a couple of the errors I found in this piece.

    • Hi TT

      Thanks for the comment.

      The definition of Secular in the Oxford English dictionary is that it is an adjective “denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis” All the regimes I mentioned in the article fit into this category. The Nazi state’s religious doctrine was a nationalistic one I grant you but it does not fall under typical religious thinking. Much of the atrocities took place due to the regimes adherence to social Darwinism (although I believe that this is a horrendous distortion of Darwin’s theory and represents scientific misunderstanding).

      If New Atheism kept itself to simply being a non-belief in God than it would not be a defining principal but when one defines himself/herself as an Atheist and uses this as a method of identification in order to attack religion it then becomes more than a viewpoint. It is the proselyting practiced by the the New Atheist movement that makes it more than simply a personal belief and it is the view that it is correct and all religions are wrong and should be eradicated that makes it fundamental.

      Dawkins himself mentioned in the New Statesman when he was guest editor of the Christmas issue of the New Statesman that a victory for Atheists would be the destruction of Christianity.

      How is the destruction of the faith of billions not a fundamentalist position to take?

      • “Much of the atrocities took place due to the regimes adherence to social Darwinism” – No. The atrocities took place because the fascists considered those of other races to be untermensche. Sub-human, or less than human, fit only for slavery and extermination. Social Darwinism, whatever ill-defined, crypto-fascist, ludicrous mumbo-jumbo that may be, has nothing to do with evolution, and everything to do with the politics of racial superiority and bigotry.

        “How is the destruction of the faith of billions not a fundamentalist position to take?” You are comparing apples and pears. In science, if a theory does not fit the facts then it is inadequate and is superceded by one that better suits the observations. In secular matters, this is not a destructive process, merely one of better comprehending the processes under observation. Religion is inflexible and dogmatic, it requires unquestioning faith, or at least the questions must always be answered in a manner supporting the belief, because to do otherwise you would loose faith.

        You cannot define atheism (note the lower case ‘a’) in religious terms because it is not a religion it does not deserve the status of a proper noun with a capital ‘A’, it has no tenets, it has no fundamentals to fall back on. It is an absence, not a thing. You create a straw man argument. Your fallacies and delusions are not important to me, or to any atheist, what is important is that the religious claim the right to proselytise unopposed. It is high time you all came under some rational scrutiny. Defend your position. I respect and would defend to the death, your right to hold an opinion, but do not expect me to respect that opinion. Your ideas should be open to criticism and scrutiny. It is the unquestioning acceptance of authority be it religious or political that allows autocracy to flourish.

        • Christian if you read my reply in the post above you will see that I immediately concede that Social Darwinism is a completely abhorrent distortion of Dawin’s theory of evolution.

          “In science, if a theory does not fit the facts then it is inadequate and is superceded by one that better suits the observations.”

          Most reputable scientists including eminent physicists and astrophysicists would declare that science is a long way from burying God.

          However without using the shifting the burden of proof argument (which funnily enough appears on your handy list of fallacies that you so helpfully posted earlier in the discussion when you accused me employing them) there is not currently enough scientific evidence to answer the question either way.

          This makes the position that there is no God a position of faith and akin to religious belief or at best a philosophical position therefore to currently suggest the destruction of religious faith like Professor Dawkins does is taking that belief to the extreme.

          I capitalized atheist in my response to TT as that was the form used in original post. You have also capitalized the word in your earlier post it is therefore not a backhanded attempt to create a straw-man as you suggest.

          “Your fallacies and delusions are not important to me, or to any atheist,”

          This is exactly what I talk about in the article, the opinion that all religious views are nonsense and therefore should be disregarded, you are trying to attack the point of the article by conforming to the criticism that I set out in the piece.

          This is not an article about the existence of God or the worth of religion rather about the social phenomenon of the so called new atheist movement and how it is becoming more extreme in its attacks on organised religion. The way that adherents to the more militant brand of atheism take to their keyboards as you yourself have done here is the brand of fundamentalism that I discuss in the article.

          “Your ideas should be open to criticism and scrutiny.”

          They are that’s why there is a comment section.

          “I respect and would defend to the death, your right to hold an opinion, but do not expect me to respect that opinion.”

          That’s a little bit of an intolerant position to take. Even though your opinion may differ from mine I respect your opinion and will discuss it with you openly.

          To begin a discussion by informing someone that you have no respect for their opinion is the worst kind of intellectual arrogance and typifies exactly what people object to in the new atheist movement and why people call it fundamentalist.

          • My position is not intolerant, it is a statement of fact. Everyone has the right to an opinion, but one based on fantasy, superstition, ignorance or bigotry does not necessarily warrant respect. It may well warrant challenge, however. Opinions, like people, earn respect. It cannot and should not be accorded equally everywhere. The opinions of a racist, judging people on a single superficial aspect of their appearance, deserves no respect whatsoever, and their opinions should be ruthlessly challenged at every opportunity. Respect is a continuum, it is not black and white, where you either have it or do not have it.

            I take issue with your application of loaded religious terms like fundamentalism, to atheism. As I said, atheism is a state of not being religious, it is not in itself anti-religious, In the same way that a clear blue sky is not anti-cloud, it just has no clouds in it.

            By applying the frame of reference of religious fundamentalism to atheism, you build the picture of your straw man as rigid, dogmatic and inflexible. Atheism is anything but, it is not a creedo, it has no tenets, no dogmas, it has no preconceptions or requirements other than the absence of deity, just as the clear sky has no clouds. This does not mean that atheists could not conceive of beings with powers that may seem omniscient or even omnipotent, they would simply seek to understand the functioning of these creatures and their place in the universe. They are not Gods, they would be simply creatures to be understood as we strive to understand ourselves and all around us.

            Those that choose to challenge what they see as the irrationality of religion, should be allowed to do so. If your opinion cannot stand the harsh light of reason being shone upon it, then why should it persist. I would not deny you the right to hold such an opinion, and only you could change your mind. All we do is offer an alternative, one that requires no omnipotent, omniscient supernatural beings. If you are right, if your arguments are strong and your evidence solid, what do you have to fear from questions?

  7. “[multiple atrocities of 20th century] were perpetrated in overtly secular
    societies where the notion of being accountable to something greater
    than ourselves has become redundant.”

    Quite untrue. The Third Reich promoted the ideal of the Arayan state and race, and Stalinist Russia promoted the ideal of the state also. Both would most certainly meet the definition “the notion of being accountable to something greater than ourselves”

    Today, we see North Korea trying to construct similar a ideology around their leadership dynasty.

    The danger is indeed that of fundamentalist ideology. There is nothing of new atheism that it can be fundamental towards, save naturalism. Occasionally I would see an atheist make a stupid, bigoted or ill-informed point, and the first people to slap them down will be other atheists.

    It is not a cohesive group – as often said, they equate to everyone that doesn’t collect stamps. Yes, they will critique religion because it amply deserves it – in a society where there is no longer undue deference, power, tax breaks and political clout unjustly awarded to religion, so will that criticism abate.

    “Without God, mankind is no longer sacred and without that status we are free to do to others what our own consciences tell us is permissible and there is nothing more subjective than the human conscience.”

    As we have ample evidence that not only humans but other social mammals have innate morality, this is not as frightening as written in the paragraph above.

    • Guess Atheists have to find some greater goal for mankind too. In the French Revolution they killed in the name of Reason, destroyed art, beautiful buildings and sculptures. Hitler tried to fill the God void with his mixture of German myths and made himself the great redeemer of the German nation. Mao was just in love with himself and constructed a Myth with his Bible, the little Red Book. It proves the point that atheism also needs its own kind of faith function. So atheists shouldn’t think that reason will banish human cruelty and evil.

      • Those examples prove no such thing – some of those individuals were not even atheists (Hitler was Catholic, at least of a sort) and none were humanists, the preferred philosophical worldview of most modern atheists.

        If reason promotes cruelty and evil-doing, then it’s being done badly or has been corrupted.

        • Hitler grew up in a Catholic environment but hated the Catholic Church. Hundreds of priest had to go to concentration camps because they spoke up against the inhumanity of the 3rd Reich. Hitler spoke of the “Vorhersehung”(providence) in his speeches, never about God and wasn’t religious in a Christian sense.

          I think humanism is great as some kind of philosophical principle. It still is no substitute for the inherent religious need of most ppl. 🙂

          • You assume an inherent religious need. This is merely an unsubstantiated assertion on your part. I have no such need. The religious kill, maim and torture as easily, or perhaps more easily then anybody else. Christians, Jews and Muslims are have killed each other, and their own, for centuries. And continue to do so on a daily basis.

          • You speak like a tone deaf person talks about music. Evil and cruelty doesn’t magically disappear without religion. It is sadly also inherent in human nature.

          • And you seem to say this without a sense of irony? Amazing. I said nothing of the sort, the inference is yours and is incorrect. If you read a little more carefully you will see that I was making exactly the same point about religion. The presence or absence of an irrational belief in the supernatural is no defining factor for brutality. That being said, much hideous brutality has been wrought in the name of religion, your very own sect was one of the worst offenders in the past, and counts many priestly child molesters too. Pious, religious men with a sexual predeliction for children. However, unlike your earlier argument and the main thrust of this opinion piece above, I do not fall into the trap of saying that because there are child molesting Catholic priests and that the Catholic church systematically tortured and murdered thousands over the centuries, Catholics are child molesting, torturers. That would be stupid, yet I have seen many pieces by the apologists for the irrational that make the similar connection about atheists, or “secular” nations. Equally disingenuous, fallacious, badly reasoned, naive and just plain stupid.

          • OK then I must have misunderstood your point. I agree there should be no organised religion with political power. Whenever it is in power it becomes corrupted by it. Horrible crimes were committed in her name. But during the same time the Church produced incredible philosophers, artists,composers and theologians who were deeply rooted in her faith.
            The horrible crime by priests were covered up and I hope the Church has learnt her lesson. But again in any other organisations the same abuse took place. In Germany they now discover many abuses in state run orphanages and recent scandals of bigwig Green Party members who had abusive “relationships” with young kids in the 70s. Cohn- Bedit was one of them, only the liberal press doesn’t report too much about it. He recently received a European price. What hypocrathy …
            I am a Ron Paulian Libertarian who believes in separation of state and church, but he is a devoted Christian who believes in the important role churches, temples and mosques play in providing private services to counter the Almighty State.

          • So we agree then, the presence or absence of religious belief in a human is no precondition for aberrant behaviour.

            The presence or absence of religious faith in no way restricts the creative process. It may colour it, but it does not hamper it.

            Finally, so that we get things completely straight, no atheist would be as naive as to suggest that the end of religion would end strife.

            Now that just leaves us with the premise of the article. It makes sweeping assumptions about what atheists think or believe, without once being even remotely correct. This is a basic straw-man argument, the straightforward, unabashed misrepresentation of the position of atheists. Secular states being characterised as rapacious monsters, as if this is novel, with the unwritten suggestion that a religious state would not do the same, when throughout history overtly religious states have wrought terrible privations. It is merely the fact that modern implements of death are far more effective than in the past that destruction can be brought to so many. The whole article implies that religion is a brake on atrocity when in fact it has provided no such thing, ever, and in fact is the reason for much, although it does not have exclusive ownership. That is why I take issue with the article. It is wrong in both word and meaning from start to almost the very end. Only the last two paragraphs have any merit, let down at the very end with a misinterpretation of the word fundamentalist.

      • “I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator” – Hitler. Not to mention the fact that the SS had belt buckles with the inscription “God With Us”.

        There are more similarities between fascist ideology (reverence and subservience towards a god-like figure) and religion, than there is between atheism and religion. Most atheists and secularists look up to the values of humanism, a philosophy which is not fundamentalist.

        Sure, some atheists (Dawkins especially) come across as arrogant and intolerant. But atheism, by definition, cannot be fundamentalist because as an absence of belief it has no ‘fundamentals’ to hold as dogmas. To say that atheism has its own kind of faith sets up a straw man argument, in which you give a misconception of atheism in order to make it easier to attack.

        • Hi Sam
          Thanks for commenting on the article.
          The absence of belief is not fundamentalist in any way and I do not believe that I argue that int he article. It is the proselytizing nature of the new Atheist movement and the position that it is the only correct ideology that makes it fundamental. Any movement that seeks the destruction of viewpoints that oppose it and professes itself as absolute truth is a fundamentalist doctrine.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here