Fundamentalist Atheism?

     I have noticed, since I became an atheist and since I started openly using the term to describe myself, that the word "atheist" alone carries a lot of sigma and negative connotations. Atheists are statistically the least trusted group in America. Comedian Dane Cook's famous joke about atheists, though hilarious, epitomizes the public conception of atheists. I even recall a point where I simply told someone I was an atheist and they started to defend their faith immediately, through Pascal's Wager.

     What is it about the concept that prickles the religious? Why is there a vague fear or mistrust of atheists?

      To address the main connotation of the word "atheist," I would like to reassure those who feel uneasy. Atheists, for the most part, do not wish to pull you away from your faith. There are very few that will snobbishly swipe their nose and scoff when you mention your faith and then challenge it. And the ones that do are much less associated with atheism then they are with douchebaggery. Unfortunately, it is these people who take the face of atheism, because they are the only ones who speak out on behalf of atheism and because they have been associated with "New Atheism."

      The New Atheist movement erupted recently with a surge in atheist writings, notably by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Dan Dennet (known by the religious defense as "The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse"). There is a wide range of sensitivity for the religious in these books, but they all convey an important message: society should peel back the latent protection we place on religion.

      Our beliefs are scrutinized regularly in our culture, especially in a student culture, where views and beliefs are developing rapidly. Gay marriage, abortion rights, drug laws, economics strategies, global warming, immigration, foreign policy, and every other topic in the world are free to be discussed and to evolve in the public eye. When the conversation arrives at religion, however, it falls silent. Under the guise of "respecting people's beliefs," we have shut down the ability to be critical of others beliefs.

     So is the New Atheist movement at least reasonable? I should think so. The theists that see the movement as "Fundamentalist Atheism" do not seem to want to discuss their beliefs. Is it not reasonable to ask for justification for a belief?

The Confused Definition of Atheism

There is no god.

     This statement says a lot about the person saying it. They have a belief, even though they might claim they don't. They have some kind of certainty that allows them to make such a statement. In this sense, they are in the same position as the religious in that they must prove it. So how could one be an atheist, if it's impossible to disprove God?

     Now the concept of agnosticism should be introduced. Agnosticism comes from the Greek prefix "a," meaning "without," combined with the root "gnosis," meaning knowledge. The condition of agnosticism in this context is that knowledge concerning the existence of God is unknowable. Conversely, gnosticism is the condition that this knowledge can be known. It is more of a quality of a position, instead of a position.

     The possible positions with respect to the existence of God are simply atheism and theism.

     "No!" the agnostics cry when they hear those words. "I'm not on either side, I don't know what to think about it all. That's why I'm agnostic, I'm in the middle."
     I'm sorry to say, agnostics, but there is no middle ground. You don't get to choose between atheism, agnosticism, and theism. It's really mapped out like a grid.

     The possible positions, as stated, are atheism and theism. The easy way to diagnose yourself here is to ask yourself the question "Do I believe in God?" Any answer, other than yes, labels you as an atheist.

     To the agnostics that just answered "no" to that question, fear not. Whether you said yes or no to the last question, you are now going to assess the quality of the position you hold. The possible qualities are gnosticism and agnosticism. The questions to ask yourself for this one run along the lines of "Do I believe I'm correct?" or "Can I know for certain that my position is correct?"

     So we see that we have two different kinds of atheists now. There are gnostic atheists and agnostic atheists, or strong and weak atheists. Now let's look at the initial statement, "there is no god." Is it the agnostic atheist or the gnostic atheist who makes this statement? Because it is what is called a "positive claim to knowledge," it must spring from the lips of the gnostic atheist.

     But agnostic atheists seem to not have made such a claim. They don't believe in God, but they don't make the claim "there is no god." Agnostic atheism seems to be a reaction to the claims of theism. The theist has stated in a matter-of-fact manner "God exists," and the agnostic atheist has only said "I don't believe that." Notice, the agnostic atheist hasn't stated anything about the existence of God. He has only stated his position on it. Now, the case for gnostic atheism could be made, but it is important to know that the vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists.

     Finally, I must mention those who are referred to as "ignorstics." This comes from the Anglo-Saxon "ignore" and the Greek "agnostic." This is a condition of those whose lives are hardly affected by religion or the existence of God. They live their lives, dealing with more mundane concerns, and they rarely think about the issue. They ignore religion. I need not do more than address their existence, because I find it highly unlikely that they will be reading here.