(November 6, 2012 at 9:29 am)passionatefool Wrote: apophenia,
most of my response wasn't even toward you neither did I care to call you a fundie atheist. I hardly read any of your response.
You hardly read any of Apo's response? How then did you extract three multi-sentence portions to address?
Here's a nice essay from A.C. Grayling that should help with your confusion regarding the term "fundamentalist atheist".
http://www.skeptical-science.com/atheism...-grayling/
Quote: So, in order not to be a “fundamentalist” atheist, which of the absurdities connoted in the foregoing should an atheist temporise over? Should a “moderate atheist” be one who does not mind how many hundreds of millions of people have been deeply harmed by religion throughout history? Should he or she be one who chuckles indulgently at the antipathy of Sunni for Shia, Christian for Jew, Muslim for Hindu, and all of them for anyone who does not think the universe is controlled by invisible powers? Is an acceptable (to the faithful) atheist one who thinks it is reasonable for people to believe that the gods suspend the laws of nature occasionally in answer to personal prayers, or that to save someone’s soul from further sin (especially the sin of heresy) it is in his own interests to be murdered?
Oh yeah, I almost forgot...fuck off!