I agree in a sense, however. Jews are as far as I know the only “race” who is defined by their religion. Color doesn’t seem to matter when polling a christian, a muslim, or an hindu. The jewish people are to my knowledge the only religion who segregate themselves as a race because of their religion.

I could also be, and am probably horribly wrong.

p.s im a 16 year old kid that went through hell im my childhood and still am but when i accepted jesus i didn’t feel the same going through trials i felt a joy

Theists, on the other hand, either believe the teachings of their scripture verbatim, or in varying degrees. Fundamentalist theists are distinguishable from more progressive theists. Because of this, we can say that the term “(insert-religion-here) fundamentalist” has meaning, for they are people who refuse to accept the progress views of their brethren.

So when I say that there is no such thing as an atheist fundamentalist, it is because there is only one view to hold as an atheist. To call someone a fundamentalist implies that there are different perspectives possible within their belief system. That’s just not so when it comes to atheists. You actually made that distinction yourself when you mentioned agnostics, but agnostics are not atheists. Of course, some agnostics don’t know what they are. I applied the term to myself when I was going through the transitional phase of rejecting the belief system I had grown up with and embracing reason.

But being in a very philosophical mood, I decided to post some views about the issue.

“Fundemantelist” has become a term to be used about everyone who are very concerned with something. No doubt, the reason for Theists to use it against Atheists is that they want to get a break from very real accusations of fundamentalism. You know, the accusations about terror and violence done in the name of God, referring to a holy scripture accompanied by a “Let’s go back to year 0!” attitude. It doesn’t stick at all.

However:
The term “Fundamentalist Atheist” can have a meaning, like this:

We already speak of “hard” and “soft” Atheists, but the fundament for Atheism is that there is no god. Not that there is no god like there is no pink unicorn.
But if the boundaries of Atheism get blurred, then “No belief in God” is its fundament.
In this respect, the hard Atheist will insist on Atheism in its purest form, while the softie will open for a certain doubt, albeit theoretical. Some may even be almost Agnostics.

There are even some (but hopefully few) who see Atheism as purely relating to gods – not, say, spirits and those damn pink unicorns. In fact, this type could very well claim to be a fundamentalist Atheist because Atheism as a term do not technically have anything to do with spirits or pink unicorns. “God” does not include “spirits” and it is not Aspirituality or Apinkunicornism. But I sure hope that this is only a theoretical problem, or we will have to find a new term.
(I do happen to know of a self-proclaimed Atheist who mocked Christians, but believed in Von Däniken theories…)

Well, having said all this, I think (as was the point with the blog post) that the term “Fundamentalist Atheist” as it is used by religious people is completely absurd. However, it can have a meaning as a “back to basics” form of Atheism.