DarthMetaKnight wrote:
Is it even fundamentalism that causes problems? What is a fundamentalist? Are all creationists fundamentalists? What if someone really tried to be like Jesus and was a creationist and a believer in nonviolence and charity? Would that person be a problem? .
Fundamentalists tend to have morally absolutist, exclusionary ideals and have zero tolerance for any deviation in their pre-conceived code of ethics. That's why fundamentalists don't have any problems killing others that might have similar beliefs--they don't have the same ideals and don't embrace the same lifestyle as the fundamentalists and are therefore infidels (so you should probably be careful in saying that people who bomb abortion clinics aren't really Christian). The opposite of a fundamentalist would either be a relativist or a pluralist.
So if the definition of an atheist is one who does not believe in the existence of a deity, then secular humanism, communism, Objectivism, Buddhism, Jainism, Raelienism and some sects of Unitarian Universalism would all fall under the group of atheistic ideologies. And within these ideologies you'll likely find some who will denounce other atheists of not being true unbelievers, of being irrational or dogmatic, which ironically makes the accusers guilty of the very sin they are denouncing. By assigning pre-conceived notions about what is rational or irrational (regardless if said notions are based on empiricism or superstition), one has submitted oneself to an absolutist dogma, making them a fundamentalist.