Do you think there is such a thing as fundamentalist atheism?

Yes, there probably would be. I myself would find it very difficult to accept that there was a god if it was proven, although I know that I would eventually accept it...but who's to say that some wouldn't.

MTR, I was laughing at your question until I thought about it some more and I do see what you are trying to express. However the examples you mentioned like earth rotation, stars, and gravity being the force that holds us here on Earth, and let's go ahead and say evolution are the best scientific evidence we have so far. Evolution is not a fact, true, but a true scientist, I believe!, sees it as the best theory we have, and will change his/her mind if a better theory comes along. That we were created by God in 6 days is not any kind of scientific theory. It's a myth expressed by a wonderful writer who never in his wildest imagination meant it to be taken as a Geological text.

Beyond that I really don't know how to answer your question. I suppose taken to its absolute logical end point, we really don't know how we got here and if there was evidence that the earth, the universe was created by a superior being, then one would be a (your phrase-Fundamentalist-Atheist), not to consider the evidence. But I suspect that that person would be a rare bird indeed. Surely it makes more sense for different theologians to argue the point of different religious beliefs or "faiths," and different scientists to argue different theories of what is evidently true.

I think as a rationalist you can only wait for that evidence that God did create the world to come along so that you can alter your beliefs. I don't believe that atheists should call themselves agnostics. Be who you are. Be a Christian or be an Atheist.

BTW, the authenticity or lack thereof the Shroud of Turin, say, does not justify faith. Faith is being grasped by ultimate concern; it is a way of living. This should be perhaps a way of separating faith and science.

Before jumping to your ideas, we should get one thing clear. Atheism is not a belief system. It is simply a rejection of theism as being a plausible idea. It is a based on insufficient evidence and the lack of testability of this superstition. Atheists may or may not believe in scientific claims. What is claimed to be evidence may not be. None-the-less, the rejection of theism is based on lack of evidence. It is a matter of judgment.

Agnostics however are incapable of deciding or judging for themselves. A judge decides a case based on the preponderance of evidence or the lack of sufficient evidence. A judge does not have the liberty to say he does not know which way to judge the case even when he cannot be 100% sure of his decision. Nobody is ever 100% sure of anything. Thus agnostics are indecisive people and lack leadership qualities, while fully recognizing the superstitious and unsubstantiated nature of theism.

Can an atheist reverse his judgment? Absolutely. There is no such thing as 'fundamentalist atheism'.

There is no such thing.

Strictly speaking, a "fundamentalist" is supposedly someone who believes in the "basic fundamentals" of their religion. More recently the term has become firmly associated with the extreme social conservatives and right-wing-oriented politics, often including the "my way or the highway" mentality. Typically evangelical, anti-education, anti-science, and terrified by even the vaguest hint of their favorite bogeyman ("Satan") in everything from Sunday Night Bingo to the push-up bra.

Atheism is a lack of religious belief. There is no dogma to cling to. There are no "fundamentals" to believe.

BTW: "Proofs" are for mathematics, not science. Unlike beliefs, you can examine the evidence yourself, perform the same experiments, and eventually come to the same conclusions. In any case, science has demonstrated its reliability far more than any "belief" ever has.

I would accept the existence of God if it became apparent.

Well, you wouldn't have much choice would you?

Atheists only reject the idea of a supreme being in the form that human beings have perceived Him.

We may be an experiment in a giant Petri dish.

The 'Full picture' must always remain beyond our comprehension.

You have been given life. Live it according to nature's call and you'll be happy.

Certainly look at the stars and wonder but find someone to share your Moonlight.

We're all strictly agnostic - I don't believe in God because I see no reason to. Show me some evidence and I'll believe (although worship is another matter).

But I can't agree with your assertion that it takes "belief" that the stars are not just "lights in the sky". Science in fact has evidence that this is not the case, and this is enough for me.

You seem to be taking the Christian view that everything requires "faith". It doesn't, so I don't accept your premise.

You are a fundamentalist. Aristotle and Plato -- to pick two biggies -- say that the existence of God is knowable by reason with certainty.

For you to reject that -- without explicit reason -- makes your belief fundamentalist.

And a full picture is irrelevant. That is fundamentalist too. To say that you can't know anything unless you know everything is pure 'truth by fiat' That is, I say it so it must be so.

Aristotle Versus the Atheists: On the Existence of God and the Immortality of the Soul

Paul Berry

"Aristotelianism, has survived, and has overcome every assault against it through the length of history. The endurance of the structure has come not to rest on the approval of academics and intellectuals, but because it has drawn to itself the love of normal men and women. This has taken place when they seek to know if there is a God and if they possess an immortal soul."

I used to label myself agnostic for the simple reason that I couldn't absolutely prove that there is no God. But then it occured to me that since I don't believe, atheist is probably a better word to describe me.

But, no, I can't imagine not believing if there were some trail of evidence that could lead you to believing. That would be like not believing in the quadratic equation.

Religious fundamentalists usually adhere strictly and literally to certain beliefs and holy books. They are closed minded to other beliefs or theories. They are right and everyone else is wrong.

The atheist and/or agnostic are more tolerant of others and more open minded. Granted, there are some atheist who are arrogant and think religous belief of any kind is stupid and superstitious.

I am like you. If god would suddenly appear to me, I would have to believe he/she/it existed. But for right now, I choose not to believe.

Fundamentalism = strictly following the fundamentals of a religion.

Atheism ain't a religion, so the term fundamentalist atheism is an oxymoron.

''I have no proof that the stars are not simply lights in the sky, nor that the earth travels round the sun, nor that the Earth's gravitational pull stops me from floating up''

There;s plenty of visual, theoretical and practical proof for all of these ones. If you search, you will find them.

Atheism isn't the steadfast belief that there isn't a god, it's the LACK of belief that any gods exist. If something is asexual, it doesn't mean that it's opposed to sexuality, it means that it doesn't have it. Same thing with asymmetry, apathy, apolitical, etc. Therefore, the term "fundamentalist atheism" doesn't make any sense.