There’s nothing weak about my views, hah.

Because let’s face it, when Dawkins says he’s a 6-leaning-to-7 on the 1-to-7 atheist scale, he’s not really saying that he has doubts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_atheism

It appears that ’strong atheism’ is a belief that no deities exist.

‘Weak atheism’ or in the past referred to as ‘negative atheism’ is a lack of belief in the existence of deities, while not rejecting the very small possibility that there is a deity.

Note that Richard Dawkins acknowledges there’s a very unlikely chance that a god does exist.

To me, the important difference between the two terms is that strong atheism is a belief, while weak atheism is not. Thus, barring these definitions and terms are valid, it would appear that there is some basis to the original argument concerning fundamentalism and atheism. That said, I know that such a comparison does not apply to myself as I am specifically a weak atheist, as is Richard Dawkins according to the definitions.

Also note: acknowledging the unlikely existence of a diety is not much of a concession, because I also acknowledge the unlikely existence of an invisible unicorn. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_pink_unicorn)

Other than the religious definition, the only other definition I think is relevant to the matter, is:

“strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles”

If we make “fundamentalist” mean something else, then I’m okay with it, as long as it’s explained to me beforehand, that we don’t really mean what I think we mean by fundamentalist. Maybe it helps if we either make up new words and their definition, or stick the definition of already existing words. Helps communication I think.

However, if we redefine “fundamentalist” to mean someone who won’t budge from the belief that New Zealand is indeed in the Southern Hemisphere unless proven otherwise, then I think “fundamentalist” starts having a meaning a little bit too wide, one that I think is not very mainstream.

I’m not trying to to argue that anyone is a fundamentalist anything in a literal sense, just clarifying what might be meant.

Fundamentalism has absolutely nothing to do with atheism, but the religious continuously fabricate such things to try and benefit their cause (there’s never any rational thought involved).

It’s a feeble attempt to equate disbelief in god based on a lack of proof to firmly believing in that same god. (That sentence just slightly rephrased from your post.)

Atheism is not a belief. Atheism is a lack of belief, because there is no evidence for the existence of a god.

All atheists would instantly change their minds if unequivocal evidence of a god is discovered. (Like that’s going to happen.)

If there was proof of a god, atheism would cease to exist.

I strongly don’t believe because there is no evidence. If there any evidence at all, I would believe.