fundamentalist strawmanism
In defense of the term "fundamentalist atheist."
The fundamental (read: only) precept of atheism is: lack of a belief in a deity. So, to be a "fundamentalist atheist," one must strictly adhere to a "lack of a belief in a deity."
A fundamental atheist is the exact same thing as a regular ol' atheist.
I think a better tactic against the term is to show that it's redundant, and therefore meaningless, and then say it's wrong for confusing fanatic with fundamentalist, rather than only pointing out the confusion. Letting people strawman terms is never ok. Killing their agenda-laden definition should be step one.
(on a totally unrelated note: "Happiness is never hearing a dog bark, ever again.")
The fundamental (read: only) precept of atheism is: lack of a belief in a deity. So, to be a "fundamentalist atheist," one must strictly adhere to a "lack of a belief in a deity."
A fundamental atheist is the exact same thing as a regular ol' atheist.
I think a better tactic against the term is to show that it's redundant, and therefore meaningless, and then say it's wrong for confusing fanatic with fundamentalist, rather than only pointing out the confusion. Letting people strawman terms is never ok. Killing their agenda-laden definition should be step one.
(on a totally unrelated note: "Happiness is never hearing a dog bark, ever again.")