On "Fundamentalism"

“Some atheists say that "fundamentalist" is an inaccurate label for them b/c they a fundamentalist is by definition a person who believes in something or someone, and therefore since atheists don't believe in any God(s) they cannot be fundamentalists. Is this an accurate definition/description?”

Not quite. Literally, a fundamentalist is someone who believes in the fundamentals of something. Historically, this label was claimed by some who believed in certain “fundamentals” of the Christian faith (such as inerrancy). Later, it was attached to a certain brand of Christians, and now is associated with the “don’t drink don’t smoke don’t chew don’t go with girls who do” type mindset. Also with judgmentalism. This is why I don’t associate myself with the word as it is used today. The original idea, as well as the meaning of the word more generally, is not quite so juicy.

But imagine how fun it would be to play on these two uses of the word with a Christian opponent (if you were the non-Christian). A strawman, sure; equivocation, yes; but too entertaining to pass up. At least that is how I would feel if I had no restraints of Christian morality.

Or it could be that a person simply doesn’t know that there are very different uses of the world—most Christians don’t, and it is our own history.

Now apply it to the discussion and the non-Christian. If he associates the word with the present historical use, or the original historical use, of course he cannot be a fundamentalist, because it describes a group of Christians.

But taken more generally to mean, “accepts certain fundamentals of worldview x by faith,” he not only can be one, but necessarily is one (assuming you accept the argument for this contention that we entertained earlier).

That being said, I would try to avoid fixating on the word, and if the person to whom you were talking is willing, you can move on to concepts and avoid using words that don’t seem to stay put very well.