Are some Atheists as Fundamentalist as the Beliefs they Dismiss?

Unfortunately the true meaning of both aetheist and agnostic have been lost. Many people today use the words to infer either atheist - does not believe in God, & agnostic - is undecided about the presence of God. Actual atheists, historically, felt that whether or not God exists, your life path should not depend upon receiving rewards in Heaven for good behaviour. The good acts you perform should be reward in and of themselves. The agnostics followed the gnostic Gospels, and the Biblical Gospels. Depending on which Gnostic Gospel you gave highest creedence to, would define your form of gnostic belief. Most dangerously to the Roman Catholic church was the gnostic belief that every single human beiing contains a little of the divine within them, and that instead of going to church, you should look for knowledge of God from within yourself. Ergo, no churches, no priests, no tithes! The reason that many Gnostics can seem strident, is that their beliefs have been lied about, decried, and even hushed up for 2000 years, and finally the evidence is available to show the corrupt nature and behaviour of the Papacy during the past.

I am an Atheist but I don't claim to have proof that god does not exist. I know he doesn't but how can you prove he doesn't right. I don't think it is up to the Atheists to prove anything, if god does exist then it should be up to the believers to prove he does. Of course this gets no one anywhere, so believe or not that is everyones choice. I think there are Fundamentalists in any religion or non-religion and they are what give the religions and atheists a bad name. I just think we should all get along and work together to make this world a better place.

I think that's right. And added to the mystery of atheistic ferocity is the question, why care so darn much about something you think does not exist in the first place? As G. K. Chesterton said, There's no bigot like the atheist.

I think you are stretching the point when you call Atheists fundamentalist. Atheism is not a religion. Richard Dawkins is probably the most outspoken of the current spokesmen for Atheism. In a recent article in the Ottawa Citizen, Dan Gardner paraphrased his position. "If you claim that something is true, I will examine the evidence that supports your claim, if you have no evidence, I will not accept what you say is true and I will think you a foolish and gullible person for believing it is so. That's it. That's the whole, crazy, fanatical package." In every thing else in our lives we demand proof but for some reason when it comes to God we ask no proof. People who ask for proof do not become fundamentalist because you can not supply that proof. I can not prove that Zeus does not exist but common sense tells me he does not. Why should owe suspend our common sense when it comes to the Judo-Christian or Islamic God? The full Dan Gardner article, "Those fanatical Atheists" can be found here. http://tinyurl.com/2mt49q

Well, they do seem to be worshiping the idea that there are no Gods very furiously... I don't know, does it look like religion to you? Perhaps the basis of their disbelieve, becomes a form of believe itself?

Hi pillusch! You are right when you stated that fact. Atheist in their attempt to prove that there is no God or they don't believe in God is in fact a proof that God really exist for how can we deny something or someone that is non existent it is just absurd and useless. For anyone to try deny someone or something must exist first. Denial or no believing in God is rather and antithesis that God exist.

You are right. Anytype of fundementalism is dangerous to the world. But it is the order of the day that militant and other preassurist groups are latent with religious and other organisations and institutions. They are extremists. Such eliments cause grave deterioration in the society. So any fundementalism should be opposed.

I am an atheist, and I think the main question when it comes to "fundamentalist" atheism is should atheists just remain silent in religious discussions, or should they attempt to demonstrate what's wrong with the qualities of the god in question? I try to be as relgiously tolerant as possible, and I only grow angered with evangelism when Christians attempt to proselytize to me.