You may be a fundamentalist atheist if...

You became an atheist when you were 10 years old, based on ideas of God that you learned in Sunday School. Your ideas about God haven't changed since.

You think that the primary aim of an omnibenevolent God is for people to have FUN.

You think questions like, "Can God create a rock so big that He cannot lift it?" is a perfect example of how to disprove God's omnipotence and ultimately how to disprove God. When someone proves to you the false logic behind the questions (i.e. pitting God's omnipotence against itself), you desperately try to defend the questions, but then give up and go to a different Christian site to ask them.

You spend hours arguing that a-theism actually means "without a belief in God " and not just " belief that there is no god" as if this is a meaningful distinction in real life.

You say that there is no God and that those who believe in God do so in blind faith, yet your claim that there is no God also rests on blind faith.

You believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution."

As a member of the Skeptic's Society you pride yourself on being skeptical of extraordinary claims. You also pride yourself on silencing everyone who is skeptical of the extraordinary claims of evolution.

When you're discussing the origin of the world, the phrase "uncaused cause (God)" is a stupid, meaningless thing to say. You will, however, settle for "uncaused effect (the world without God)".

You think you arrived at your position because you are a free-thinker who rationally weighed the evidence, and then freely chose atheism over theism. YET, you also believe that your thinking and actions are nothing more than the FIXED reactions of the atoms in your brain that are governed by the Laws of Chemistry and Physics.

You love to castigate Christians for being "anti-science" if they deny evolution from goo to you via the zoo, and to preach that they should adapt their thinking to the "science" of our day. But you also castigate the Catholics of 400 years ago for being anti-science, when it DID adapt its thinking to the science of ITS day, i.e. Ptolemaic cosmology, then joined with the Aristotelian scientists of the universities in rejecting Galileo!

You claim that "social Darwinism" and its spawn of eugenics have absolutely no connection to the biological theories propounded by Charles Darwin in "On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection”, or “The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" despite the fact that the term “eugenics” was coined and advocated by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, who acknowledged his debt to Origin, and that none of these philosophical positions have any connection to the modern fields of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology.

You can claim on sites like Talk Origins that "Evolution does not have moral consequences" despite the fact that prominent evolutionary advocates like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett vehemently assert that evolution does transcend biology in a way that has a profound effects upon ethics.

When a Christian points out the impossibility of a biological system (or feature) forming by pure chance you accuse them of invoking a "God of the gaps". YET, when you are asked how a particular feature could come about solely by chance you invoke "Evolution of the gaps" (i.e., we don"t know HOW but we do know that Evolution MUST have done it!)

You claim antibiotic-resistant bacteria is proof protozoa evolved into a person.

You insist that science is completely partial to all ideas, is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities -- except creationism and/or intelligent design.

You think that every scientist who doesn't mindlessly accept evolution as fact is a "kook".

You think that if schools teach the Intelligent Design theory of creation, they should also teach the "stork theory" of where babies come from.

Any scholar who believes in a historical Jesus must be a theist. If they are an atheist, then they must secretly want to be a theist.

You accept any number of works that say Jesus wasn't the Son of God and call them "honest", "thought-provoking" and "scholarly" proof, even when they completely contradict each other and come to completely different conclusions.

You believe that when our forefathers are framing the Constitution, they're staunch deists, but when they're beating their slaves, they're Bible-believing Christians.

When Christians tell you that the Bible is inerrant you go on and list a bunch of "contradictions"; when the Christian shows to you that those are not contradictions but the result of taking things out of context you list more "contradictions" when the Christian does the same with those you complain that he/she is just making stuff up and/or that the answer the Christian gives you are not "satisfactory" and proceed of course to list more "contradictions".

You desperately wish that Stalin and Mao hadn't been atheists.

In a coffee table conversation you hear religion represented in a positive light. You immediately start preaching about the Inquisition and the Crusades to put things back on track. After all, "we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door".

You desperately confer with other skeptics to try and refute the evidence that Hitler's Holocaust was evolution-inspired, because you just GOTTA prove that Hitler was a Christian.

You're convinced, despite evidence to the contrary, that Christianity was responsible for the Jewish holocaust because it just SEEMS like something Christians would do.

You believe that Hitler claiming to be a Christian is undeniable proof that he was a Christian, while George Washington only claimed to be a Christian in order to win the people's favor.

You assert that the 300 Protestants put to death under the reign of "Bloody Mary" in 16th century England stand as absolute proof of the inherent evil of Christianity but the tens upon tens of millions killed by Marxist regimes under Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot in the 20th century have absolutely NOTHING to do with the profound atheism inherent in these regimes.

You really believe that the Enlightenment made people more enlightened.

You adhere to a false and fictionalised version of history gained from watching Hollywood movies such as Inherit the Wind so that you can (for example) conclude: "the controversy over creation and evolution was settled way back in 1925, when Clarence Darrow eviscerated William Jennings Bryan in a country courtroom in Dayton, Tennessee."

You believe that "if it weren't for the U.S. Constitution, Christian leaders would be burning women at the stake."

You insist that the historical data is too sparse to know anything about the ancient world, but you then proceed to tell us what "actually happened" anyway.

You think if a Christian won't address your arguments, they are too frightened to do so, or know they can't answer them; but if they do address your arguments, you think it is because they are "threatened" by them.

Missionaries who go off to aid starving, impoverished and persecuted third-world people are actually "corrupting ancient tribal cultures with western religious dogma".

You believe that any Christian who claims to have once been an atheist is either lying or was never a "true atheist."

You assert that the crimes and failings of some Christians (acting inconsistently with the teachings of Christ at that!) disproves the whole edifice of Christianity but that the crimes and failings of some atheists (acting consistently with the fact that atheism can provide no basis for objective morality!) should on no account be held against the philosophy of atheism.

You assert that there is no absolute categories of good and evil, that all morals are merely personal, social and evolutionary constructs but then you can still describe Christians and Christianity as absolutely immoral, repugnant and evil and a danger to humanity and not feel even a twinge of hypocrisy at the monumental illogic of your position.

You lump all Christians in with whatever religious fruitcake is the flavour of the month, while living with the delusion that there are no atheistic weirdos out there.

You think that taking the Bible seriously is the obsession of a fanatical fringe group of right-wing, extremist Christians.

You're paranoid that Christian academics will discriminate against you, even though their actions haven't the remotest hint of that. But you applaud Michael Dini, a professor at Texas Tech, who refuses to recommend students for Medical School, even if they got "A's" in their courses, unless they not only understand but BELIEVE in goo-to-you evolution.

You believe that Christianity discriminates, because you have to join their religion in order to be a member of their religion.

You feel that Christians who go into atheist chat rooms are "shoving their beliefs down people's throats", and that atheists who go into Christian chat rooms are only trying to educate.

You are disgusted with Doctor Paul Vitz's book "Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism" because an educated person with a degree has linked atheism as a psychological condition. Yet, you have no remorse when you tell believers that they are a product of brainwashing and wishful thinking.

You're convinced that all Christians are idiots. But when you meet the "rare" Christian who's clearly intelligent, you can only conclude that he was fooled into believing...by the idiots.

You think that no Christian can ever be a patriotic American, because he will always side with the enemies of truth.

You're proud of being completely free of prejudice, unlike the "typical sociopathic Christian".

You demand that theists explain news items where bad things have happened to theists, even though no theists on the board have claimed that belief in God is some kind of a lucky charm that wards off bad luck.

You demand that theists explain news items where theists do bad things, even though no theists on the board have claimed that it is impossible for theists to do bad things.

You feel that the separation of church and state is a much more important issue than abortion, euthanasia, or infanticide.

You were too sophisticated to be afraid of (very real) "Reds under the bed" but you nevertheless see Christians behind every act of "evil" in the western world.

You think God was cruel for killing all of those innocent babies in the flood, and that Christians are cruel for opposing a woman's right to abort her baby.

You think the USA is a theocracy.

You quite rightly denounce the methods of those who deny the historicity of the Holocaust, then use the same methods (inventing excuses to ignore evidence) to deny the historicity of Jesus.

You believe that gender roles are the product of Christian patriarchy, but homosexuals are born that way.

You support gay rights when they first pushed for ‘rights’, because ‘what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is no one else’s business’. But then you want public approval and want to ban disapproval even in private situations.

You think that it's wrong to execute a convicted serial killer, but abortion on demand is a constitutional right.

You uphold a woman’s right to choose, unless a woman chooses adoption, chooses to be a stay-at-home mom, chooses to homeschool, or chooses to start a business.

You start a lawsuit to expunge Christian books from the school libraries in your state because it violates "separation of church and state" that you insist is in the Constitution. Simultaneously you start a lawsuit to defend the right to have books in the same school libraries advocating the religion of Wicca.

You object to using mice for scientific experimentation but don't mind when babies are killed for stem cell research.

When someone refers to an unborn baby as a baby, you say, "Don't you mean fetus?"

You become upset when a Christian says that not everything in the Bible should be taken literally.

You refer to the crucifixion of Jesus as the "cruci-fiction".

Your only knowledge of the Bible comes from searching "bible contradictions" in Google.

You consistently appear on discussion lists demanding that Christians accept your literal interpretation of various scriptural passages just so you can then launch into the usual "argument by outrage" - despite being told over and over that no Bible scholar or school of Christianity shares your particular bizarre literal interpretation.

You decry Christian missionaries for denying cultural relativism; denouncing their efforts to reform cannibalism, slavery and fear of animist spirits as judgmental intolerance. But your attacks on the Bible merely comprise anguished cries of "how barbaric" rather than reasoned arguments.

Archaeology continually frustrates your attempts to find errors and contradictions in the Bible, but you continually use the same outdated accusations anyway since you're running out of material.

You think that the Bible is fiction, and that The DaVinci Code is non-fiction.

"Thinking for yourself" means adopting an atheist viewpoint.

Although you are a "free-thinker" and "rational" person, you lose all reason when reading the Bible.

You think religious tolerance does not applies to Christians.

You can gladly believe any number of conflicting philosophical positions, as long as they're atheistic!

You think that spamming Christian chatgroups and discussion lists with expletives and insults demonstrates superior free-thinking, rational, atheistic logic.

You think that it is possible to talk meaningfully about "good and evil", "right and wrong" when decrying the sins of the Church while simultaneously subscribing to the notion that neither sin nor good and evil exist as ultimate categories but only as personal and social constructs.

You assert that "faith is believing things which you know aren't true", and you really "believe" that many human beings actually believe things they know aren't true.

You deny that someone can possibly know they know the truth ("It's just belief, not knowledge,") while at the same time claiming to know the truth.

You just can't see any difference between Pat Robertson Jerry Falwell, etc, and Osama bin Laden.

You consider "Ha, ha, ha" a substantive rebuttal to an argument.

You say things like, "I can't tolerate religion because religion is intolerant. And no type of intolerance should be tolerated."

You can't believe in a book that was created over two thousand years ago because "we're not sure WHAT happened", but you know for a fact that religion was created tens of thousands of years ago specifically to control the brainwashed public.

You have fallen for the post-9/11 religious paranoia and think that all Christians are "potential" kamikazes.

You believe any person who writes a book critical of Christianity is doing it for "education" purposes. Conversely, you believe that any person who writes a book defending Christianity is "just in it to make money".