Here’s a 20-minute video in which Brian Dalton (formerly “Mr. Deity”) debunks the old canard that passionate atheists are as bad as religious fundamentalists. At about 3:30, he disposes of the similar claim that atheists always interpret scriptures more literally than do believers. He later argues that religious moderates rather than fundamentalists are the believers who really “pervert the faith.”
Dalton’s bit about the baby and the bathwater at about 12:30 is nice, and don’t miss the powerful summing-up beginning at 19:15.
Of course Dalton’s vigorous defense of anti-theism and criticism of religion is certainly going to brand him as a “fundamentalist atheist.” For in the Thesaurus of Accommodationism and Faitheism, “fundamentalist” is another word for “passionate.”
h/t: Robin
Wow. I’m not sure anyone has said it so well. Thanks for sharing.
My thoughts exactly. I don’t like the term fundamentalist, but I agree with everything Brian Dalton had to say and under his definition I’d definitely qualify as a fundamentalist atheist too.
Wow. I am not sure anyone has said it better.
A friend of mine who’s a “spiritual minister” told me that a “fundamentalist” is “someone who tells someone else that they’re wrong.”
I don’t think that definition is idiosyncratic. It seems to me that there’s a kind of common anxiety surrounding the idea that religion is either true or false and up for any sort of debate. On the contrary, one’s spirituality is supposed to be off limits. People who try to proselytize or convert others break the Golden Rule of Tolerance. Rational argument is lumped in with the others, and can extent into quasi-religious areas like alternative medicine and the paranormal.
The people who snarl at “atheist fundamentalists” usually aren’t fundamentalists themselves. They tend to come from the accomodationist wing of “faith, any faith at all.”
In the interview with Evan Solomon on CBC Power and Politics last night, about a Canadian Conservative federal MP, Mr. Lunney (one “n” too many for a proper phonetic pronunciation), that I and another reader referred to in a previous post’s comment section, a later portion of the show was a “debate” between Charles McVety (a pompous Christian lobbyist) and Ian Capstick (a political pundit and all around smart guy).
The debate was in response to Mr. McVety asking to come on the program to debate Ian over whether churches and other religious groups should be able to write tax receipts as charitable organization because charity giving is at least partially tax free in Canada. Ian says no, at least for the portion of their time that is spent on purely religious activities; while Mr. McVety says that that would taking away their charter rights.
Anyhow the greatest line Ian Capstick delivers in the debate, is after Charles McVety calls him a secular fundamentalist (which he later continued to do many times), when Ian says (paraphrasing) “Maybe you don’t watch this show very much but I prefer to call myself a militant atheist”
It was awesome, and it made me wonder how many political pundits on a major U.S. television news station during prime time would dare say such a thing.
God bless Canada!!
Sorry for sloppiness:
organizationS
would BE
Darn – it’s hard to proof-read until after hitting post and only then does stuff jump out at me.
It’s the thought that counts.
Being a fundamentalist isn’t a good thing to be labeled with. To me they are the ones who “know they are right and demand others follow suit or suffer.” The Christian ones in our midst want that plenary power. They are not only dangerous, many of them are the spear head of our global imperial military.
As for violence one can use a secular kind of methadone to the heroine religious fundamentalism is as dangerous and violent. When humanism is taken out you get pathological violence etc of all kinds. It becomes the frame work on what the all actions take place. Even Buddhists have and can be violent. Not just for self defense but in battle against Muslims in India and visa versa.
I thought Brian played the rhetoric pretty well in this, embracing a fundamentalism of non-violent protection of freedom of expression, including religious expression. He very adroitly drew the focus to the nature of the fundamentals as opposed to the individual’s dedication to them.
I mean, who could be upset at somebody who was a fundamentalist when it came to, for example, universal education and healthcare for children?
b&
Well… lots of US Republican types would be upset by that. My governor, for example.
Alas, too true…though they may well pretend otherwise in their speeches even as they slash budgets with their pens….
b&
Wathching this I began fantisizing what would happen if this video were to hijack and be forcibly broadcast across all internet, airwave and cable channels in an Atlas Shrugged’ type triumphant epiphany moment of defiance to the masses. Who is John…er….Jerry Galt?
Sub
While it’s not a criticism of this particular video per se — which makes many fine points — what struck me the most is how narrowly focused it was on the problems with the Bible and Quran (and Book of Mormon, I presume, since iirc Mr. Dalton is an ex-mormon.) If he’s trying to explain why he’s a ‘fundamentalist atheist,’ I don’t think it worked as a general apologetic. A pagan, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Wiccan, a New Ager, or anyone who practices ‘Sheilaism’ would probably agree with almost his entire argument — and then explain how their faith is different and avoids all these problems.
I personally prefer more general critiques which deal with the fundamental difficulties with faith, revelation, spirituality, and Other Ways of Knowing even when they’re not anchored to ancient texts steeped in an honor culture mentality. But, like Dalton, I’m also a product of my background.
You have a point when it comes to those other religions. He did say though he was particularly focused on the Abrahamic faiths, which is how I interpreted it.
I think his selectivity was deliberate and appropriate. Maybe you should post a video which addresses the broader questions.
All very true…but if everybody who currently worships at the altar of a religion that traces its roots to Abraham were to abandon it for California-style Neopagan Zen Krishna Sheilaism, so many of our worst problems would vanish and the problems that would take their places would be vastly less violently destructive and odious and much more manageable.
Besides, such non-Abrahimists constitute a vanishingly small portion of the population compared with the Abrahamists, at least in the West.
So, I’m fine with Brian just tackling the Big Three and their offshoots. I’d of course welcome somebody keeping the non-Abrahamists in line, too, but I don’t at all fault Brian for his focus and I’m glad we’ve got somebody of his calibre to take aim at the targets he does.
b&
Maybe. But don’t be too sure of that. A faith-based pro-supernatural anti-science viewpoint which privileges Other Ways of Knowing and can’t be reasoned with or against probably won’t end up well if it’s ever allowed to gain a position of power. There is no good reason to assume it’s going to continue to intersect with humanism if secularism becomes its more obvious enemy.
Oh, I’m under no impression that swapping California Woo for Abrahamism would result in an utopia of reason and harmony.
But I think it’s a pretty safe bet that it would dramatically reduce violence. Not only are the New Agers a generally peaceful (if contentious) lot, but simply doing away with the Abrahamic holy texts would do wonders for peace. No longer, for example, would children be taught to sing songs about the glories of global destruction and genocide, complete with cartoon characters of animals marching onto a floating zoo. And otherwise-decent people wouldn’t have to “struggle” with the “difficult passages” ordering the death-by-torture of homosexuals in no uncertain terms. Nor would people feel compulsion to find nobility in the ravings of a fictional madman whose most famous speech orders infinite torture for men who fail to gouge out their own eyeballs after looking at a pretty woman.
That’s gotta count for something.
b&
Agree, it’s certainly an improvement from that perspective. However, a belief that one’s total devotion to a guru, shaman, dogma, or other conduit to Spirit/God requires the sacrifice of self, the rejection of “the world,” and a focus on the perfection of the sacred is also a wild card when it comes to violence and justified killing. Higher wisdom = no brakes.
Even though it’s obvious from the backgrounds he doesn’t I always get the impression Dalton voices his videos non-stop, which somehow makes them more powerful.
Once, again he’s done a great job in dismissing the claims of those he speaks against – this time the idiots who say atheist fundamentalists are just as bad as religious fundamentalists. That, of course, includes all those fatheist idiots and people like (dare I mention him) a certain person with the initials CJW.
The Mr. Deity videos are very clever and funny, and it’s also interesting to see that he’s found a voice just being himself, too. It’s funny to me that anyone as mild-mannered as he is will be called “militant” and “strident,” but the message is those things, though I might prefer to say he is direct and blunt.
I was tempted to pause the video from time to time to give him a chance to catch his breath. 😎
I did pause it, a couple of times. After each break he seemed somewhat refreshed and ready to keep going.
Wow is right. I wish his style was less strident though. I like his style personally, but I know that no religious person would hear his actual words, they would just hear his style.
I think he carefully targets a specific audience.
Wow! This was the best video I’ve seen for years. I’ve always liked Mr Deity but when Dalton goes all out anti-theist, it’s ten times better. It is my opinion that faith is best defanged by a full frontal crash with reason and some mock and ridicule thrown in, and I think Dalton does a terrific job at that.
Directness and humor are both great approaches. He’s sweeping up a double wide audience.
Brian Dalton is worth supporting. Do it here.
The problem with religious fundamentalists is the fundament of religion. Jainism is the only exception. The more fundamentalist a jain is, the less society has to worry.
And still, Hemant Mehta was raised a Jain and has deep regrets. The essential failing of all religion is a failure to place reason first.
This should be included in school lunch boxes.
I like the point made around 8:30 which, though obvious, is not one I see often made by atheists in answering the Hitler/Mao/Stalin charge.
Formerly (???) Mr Deity. So, gawd really is dead?!?!?
And, having made my initial silly comment, I proceeded to listen. I think I have never heard a better, more succinct, more powerful rendering and summation of the problem ever. Very nicely done, Mr Dalton.
Amazing eloquence.
Wow! What an epic, Death-star blast to the balls of Abrahamic religon. Bravo.
An excellent piece but I can just imagine the catch all, get out of jail, right-wing fundamentalist response;
“he’s possessed by demons who are making him say these thing. Let’s pray for him”.
Meanwhile, my C of E family and friends would be appalled; “He doesn’t mean us though, does he?”
That depends on whether they care more for Jesus than for cheeses.
If every church were turned into a dairy, there’d be just as much bullshit as ever coming out of them…but at least we’d have something nice to serve with tea.
b&
While I object to the term, fundamentalist, being, applied to someone who disbelieves in the absence of any evidence, I thought it was a good video that should provoke thought among theists. I especially liked:
“The freedoms of speech, religion, the press and the right to privacy are nowhere to be found in your holy books. In fact, it’s just the opposite. Had such ideals been valued by the Abrahamic faiths, Jews, Christians and Muslims would have championed the freedoms of liberal democracy hundreds and thousands of years ago.”
Also, given a certain contingency on The Hill, in state governments and on school boards, I think the point about this country, rather than having been founded as a Christian nation, was created as a secular one by people fleeing the oppression of Christian nations bears repeating often.