What is "Fundamentalism?"

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-30 06:12am

Just curious. Are we using the definition in the dictionary (which is also used by social scientists) or is there another definition and connotation attached to it by posters here?

Rev Prez

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-01-30 06:14am

To me fundermentalism at SD.net means christian young earth creationists.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-01-30 06:24am

Fundamentalism as in Christian fundamentalism only.

Icehawk · Post by **Icehawk** » 2004-01-30 07:47am

As far as I can tell "Fundamentalist" when mentioned around SD.net encompasses people which range from simple creationists, over to the big bible thumping christians or any members of other religions who are so uptight in their faith based beliefs that they are almost always opposed to secularization and social or scientific progress in society.

Most often though it is usually the christian fundamentalists since in north american society they are fairly numerous (due largely to how wide spread christianity is here) and they are usually quite vocal in their views. But as I said it can also refer to other religious groups who take their beliefs to rather insane levels.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2004-01-30 08:49am

I always use "fundamentalist" in the sense of describing someone who subscribes to the fundamental texts and beliefs of their religion. In Christianity's case, it would be strict support of the validity of biblical stories and rules.

A non-fundamentalist Christian would be someone who believes in the sacrifice of Christ and the power of God, but shrugs off the bizarre, irrational, and hateful messages of the Bible as allegory, some tall tales, and the tales of a violent, nomadic, uncivilized people.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-30 12:24pm

The chief distinguishing feature of fundamentalists is that they regard their beliefs to be just as real, just as concrete as the desk in front of you or the floor beneath their feet.

Most Christians are willing to make some distinction between what we consider reality (ie- objective reality, or that which is observable) and their beliefs (which they think of as some kind of supernatural realm, often disconnected from this one). Fundies do not.

From this simple distinction comes all of fundie behaviour. Why is it OK to hurt people, make them miserable, etc. in the name of your religion? Of course, it's OK in their eyes because they're really HELPING them in the afterlife, which they regard to be just as real as this one, if not more so. Why is it OK to deny scientific fact? Of course, it's OK in their eyes because science is based on observation, and only a fool considers observation of this universe to be as real as the holy salvation eternal light yadda yadda yadda. Why do fundies believe in faith healing and other nonsense whose validity has never been objectively demonstrated? Because they do not distinguish between the objective and the subjective when it comes to their belief system.

The same applies to Islamic fundamentalists vs Islamic moderates. "Moderate" religion is another term for "watered down", which is actually a good thing. Religion is like alcohol: OK in moderation, but a terrible thing in excess.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-01-30 12:40pm

An addendum: "fundamentalism" without a qualifier here generally refers to Christian fundamentalism, since that is the most relevant to the society most of us live in. Of course, Islamic funamentalism would refer to... Islamic fundamentalism.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-01-30 03:51pm

There are also Hindu fundamentalists who hate the fact that India is legally a secular state. They cause plenty of trouble and bloodshed in their actions, (such as in their destruction of a centuries-old mosque to rebuild some legendary Hindu temple which led to riots and hundreds of deaths). We just don't talk about them much since we don't have many (if any) Indian posters and we aren't forced to put up with them on a regular basis.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-01-30 05:54pm

Mayabird wrote:There are also Hindu fundamentalists who hate the fact that India is legally a secular state. They cause plenty of trouble and bloodshed in their actions, (such as in their destruction of a centuries-old mosque to rebuild some legendary Hindu temple which led to riots and hundreds of deaths). We just don't talk about them much since we don't have many (if any) Indian posters and we aren't forced to put up with them on a regular basis.

I forget the particulars, but one group of them model themselves on a group that was funded and inspired by Nazis during WWII.

Son of the Suns · Post by **Son of the Suns** » 2004-01-30 06:36pm

A fundamentalist is anyone who accepts something as fundamental truth without any proof or evidence.

GySgt. Hartman · Post by **GySgt. Hartman** » 2004-01-30 08:46pm

We all do that, starting with the worlds existence.

Worldview or movement centered on restoring religious tradition or sacred text as guiding force in society, usually in opposition to ideas or practices considered modern.

from http://www.emory.edu/SOC/globalization/glossary.html#F

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2004-01-30 08:55pm

From dictionary.com:

A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

People that not only believe that their holy texts are infallible, but that their interpretation of said texts are infallible.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2004-01-30 08:56pm

Darth Wong wrote:Religion is like alcohol: OK in moderation, but a terrible thing in excess.

Hell yeah. I'm gonna use that saying now.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-30 08:58pm

GySgt. Hartman wrote:We all do that, starting with the worlds existence.

Worldview or movement centered on restoring religious tradition or sacred text as guiding force in society, usually in opposition to ideas or practices considered modern.
from http://www.emory.edu/SOC/globalization/glossary.html#F

Hartman has the "right" definition, as in the definition that means something to sociologists and political scientists.

The reason I asked is because I've observed a disconnect between the personal definitions people have devised for "fundamentalist" and the way they then apply the label to certain Christian individuals, groups, or ideological movements. Many of the definitions here seem to be pejorative, but when convenient some folks will revert implicitly to Son of the Suns' very vague and effectively useless take: "A fundamentalist is anyone who accepts something as fundamental truth without any proof or evidence."

Rev Prez

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2004-01-30 09:52pm

To me? They are any of those who follow the tenets preached in the Turn of the century essay The Fundamentals by George Frederick Wright...

Bob McDob · Post by **Bob McDob** » 2004-01-30 10:09pm

Xenophobe3691 wrote:To me? They are any of those who follow the tenets preached in the Turn of the century essay The Fundamentals by George Frederick Wright...

Wasn't The Fundamentals explicitly pro-evolution, though?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-30 10:22pm

I don't see what's wrong with using the dictionary definition, if one wants to be anal-retentive about it. Functionally though, the most important defining characteristic of fundamentalists is the one I mentioned earlier. It is the reason why they can rationalize things which seem ridiculously immoral to the rest of us.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-30 10:57pm

Darth Wong wrote:I don't see what's wrong with using the dictionary definition, if one wants to be anal-retentive about it. Functionally though, the most important defining characteristic of fundamentalists is the one I mentioned earlier. It is the reason why they can rationalize things which seem ridiculously immoral to the rest of us.

Nonsense. Everybody hold intuitively arrived at beliefs that are concrete in their minds, including you, and I challenge you to offer evidence that fundamentalists rationalize ridiculously immoral worldviews and behavior as a result of their beliefs to a greater extent and with a greater probility than atheists. If you can't, then chalk this up to another case of someone drawing an arbitrary distinction between certain brands of axiomatic knowledge in order to grind an axe and denegrate another group of people.

Rev Prez

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-30 11:05pm

revprez wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:I don't see what's wrong with using the dictionary definition, if one wants to be anal-retentive about it. Functionally though, the most important defining characteristic of fundamentalists is the one I mentioned earlier. It is the reason why they can rationalize things which seem ridiculously immoral to the rest of us.
Nonsense. Everybody hold intuitively arrived at beliefs that are concrete in their minds, including you

You're an idiot; unlike a fundamentalist, I distinguish between the objective and the subjective, and I challenge you to prove otherwise. At no point do I elevate unsubstantiated beliefs to the point where they could be used to persecute someone.

and I challenge you to offer evidence that fundamentalists rationalize ridiculously immoral worldviews and behavior as a result of their beliefs to a greater extent and with a greater probility than atheists.

The entire Nation of Fundamentalist Islam, for example. Also, widespread oppression of entire minorities such as homosexuals. Imprisonment of people who pay for sex between consenting adults. We are talking about outright persecution of people who offend their beliefs, without a shred of objective justification. How many people are thrown in jail for violating atheist principles in their own private activities, asshole?

If you can't, then chalk this up to another case of someone drawing an arbitrary distinction between certain brands of axiomatic knowledge in order to grind an axe and denegrate another group of people.

You're a fucking idiot. All of this has been stated clearly before, and has clearly bounced off your thick skull.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-30 11:31pm

Darth Wong wrote:You're an idiot; unlike a fundamentalist, I distinguish between the objective and the subjective, and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

I didn't bring up your ability to engage in sophistry, so why should I accept?

At no point do I elevate unsubstantiated beliefs to the point where they could be used to persecute someone.

Nor did I say you did, although I'm not entirely sure.

The entire Nation of Fundamentalist Islam, for example.

The entire nation of atheist Commies, for example. Try again. Or will you move the goal posts again to draw arbitrary distinction between your ideal atheist and the reality?

Also, widespread oppression of entire minorities such as homosexuals.

As was the case in the Soviet Union, where homosexuality was deemed as anti-social behavior?

Imprisonment of people who pay for sex between consenting adults.

Now you're reaching, as if there is no secular justification--flawed as it may be--for anti-prostitution laws.

We are talking about outright persecution of people who offend their beliefs, without a shred of objective justification.

Boo hoo. What's your point? A society's laws are historically conceived irrationally, regardless of the religiosity of the people.

How many people are thrown in jail for violating atheist principles in their own private activities, asshole?

Where do you want me to start, China? Cuba? The old Soviet Union? Vietnam? Don't be an idiot.

You're a fucking idiot. All of this has been stated clearly before, and has clearly bounced off your thick skull.

You're the fool, a hateful one at that. You've yet to establish in a single thread that fundamentalists are more likely to express intolerance, incivility, or any other negative trait than atheists. In fact, you dodge and dodge and reach for ridiculous aphorisms about what atheists believe and what fundamentalists believe. Why don't you get off your duff, do some research, and get back to me about that, aight?

Rev Prez

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2004-01-30 11:32pm

Personally, I consider a fundamentalist to be someone who is:

1. Very religous.

2. Stupid.

I realize that's not strictly correct according to the dictionary, but there's such a large crossover between stupid religous people and fundamentalists that they're functionally synonyms.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-30 11:39pm

revprez wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:You're an idiot; unlike a fundamentalist, I distinguish between the objective and the subjective, and I challenge you to prove otherwise.
I didn't bring up your ability to engage in sophistry, so why should I accept?

Smart-ass attempt to evade the point about how fundamentalists do not distinguish between the objective and subjective, and how you falsely accused me of doing the same. Get back to me when you have an answer for the point, asshole.

The entire Nation of Fundamentalist Islam, for example.
The entire nation of atheist Commies, for example. Try again.

False cause fallacy. Show that these actions were somehow related to their atheism rather than their communism.

As was the case in the Soviet Union, where homosexuality was deemed as anti-social behavior?

False cause fallacy. Show that these actions were somehow related to their atheism rather than their communism.

Now you're reaching, as if there is no secular justification--flawed as it may be--for anti-prostitution laws.

Give me one.

Boo hoo. What's your point? A society's laws are historically conceived irrationally, regardless of the religiosity of the people.

You honestly see no distinction between the rationality of laws which can identify objective harm being done by the criminal (eg- murder, theft, etc) and laws which can only point to subjective offense against certain belief systems?

How many people are thrown in jail for violating atheist principles in their own private activities, asshole?
Where do you want me to start, China? Cuba? The old Soviet Union? Vietnam? Don't be an idiot.

False cause fallacy. Show that these actions were somehow related to their atheism rather than their communism.

You're the fool, a hateful one at that. You've yet to establish in a single thread that fundamentalists are more likely to express intolerance, incivility, or any other negative trait than atheists.

OK, I'm fed up with your bullshit. You repeatedly claim that atheism is no better than religious fundamentalism; care to debate this with me? Based on your moronic false cause fallacies?

Aiyel · Post by **Aiyel** » 2004-01-31 01:01am

wow.... just... wow.

Why not just forget the whole debating form and get into a fist fight over it? It'd accmplish about as much for either of your points as beating each other with your tongues, and would be considerably more hygenic.

As for the topic at hand, I consider a 'fundamentalist' to be someone who's less about living what they believe, and more about forcing others to live that belief rather than spending the time, care and energy to get them to want to believe and live as your particualr religion tells you.

So, to summarize, flying planes into buildings doesn't make people want to join your faith. Donating sevral tons of food to an famine-stuck town in some third-world country does. Just two examples of any myriad I can come up with that would show any religion in a good or bad light. Any questions?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-01-31 01:06am

Give me a fucking break.

The Communists = Atheists tired bullshit.

The Communists were genocidals fucks because they were Communists; their atheism was not causally related.

Contrast this with countless examples and quotes throughout the modern and medieval eras where Church doctrine itself is the justification for genocide.

Not to mention, atheism is defined as "the absence of religion." How can the "absence of religion" represent a belief system with which genocide can be justified?

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-01-31 02:08am

Religion was often used as an excuse, but it was not always the cause. The Crusades were a land grab. Too many nobles, not enough Europe. Religion was an excuse, not the cause (or at least not the primary one).