What is fundamentalism? This is my take:

Fundamentalists know all there is to know, being generous and forgiving to those who follow their teachings, but harsh towards those who turn away. They are pre-occupied with condemning others and finding fault with others and give no attention to their own selves.

Being religious (or even strict in observing your religion) does not make one a fundamentalist and a fundamentalist is not necessarily religious.

The woman behind the niqab can be as much a moderate as a fundamentalist, with one proviso: the moderate living in the West may consider it too confronting for non-Muslims that it would do more harm than good.

I have met atheists on these forums who i would regard as fundamentalist. They seem to have hermetically sealed themselves with the notion “There is no proof God exists”, which strictly speaking is true.

But when you provide them with evidence (without any claim to absolute proof), they simply respond with the same mantra: “This is not proof that God exist.”.

Of course very few criminals would be convicted if the criterion was absolute proof rather than the weight of evidence (“guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”).

One also finds plenty of examples of contempt and derision in the writings of some leading atheists, as well as very poor scholarship. One exception is Victor J. Stenger in “God: the Failed Hypothesis” who is a breath of air in that he adopts a strictly scientific approach to the issue.

Anyway, that is my personal take. I’d be interested in your thoughts and in particular what you consider to be examples of fundamentalism.

My example, contrasting fundamentalist with moderates, follows.

salaams

a fundamentalist is one who believes in the fundamentals of their faith. A person who does not believe in the death, burial, resurrection of Christ and future judgement has not got a biblical belief. It is often a term used to demonize someone. A fundamentalist Muslim is one that believes in the teachings of the Koran and its prophet. A fundamentalist atheist has a belief in evolution, god denying and self righteousness.

Below is an example of how the Fundamentalist/Moderate divide is currently playing out in Somalia.

Both would say they "believe in the fundamentals of their faith" (to paraphrase Runner), but one represents a fundamentalist mentality (offensive and harsh to others who disagree and corrupting the teachings in a bid to rationalise this harshness) and the other a moderate approach yielding to 'harshness' as a last resort means of self-defense:

FUNDAMENTALISTS:
http://www.smh.com.au/world-cup-2010/world-cup-news/football-fans-executed-for-watching-world-cup-20100615-ybrj.html

<< Two Somali football fans have been killed by Islamic militants after being caught watching World Cup matches......
....Sheikh Mohamed Abdi Aros, a spokesman for the militants, said Somalia should respect their ban on the World Cup and focus on pursuing jihad.
"We are warning all the youth of Somalia not to dare watch these World Cup matches," he said.
"It is a waste of money and time and they will not benefit anything or get any experience by watching mad men jumping up and down.">>

MODERATES:
http://muslimvillage.com/2010/05/29/somalias-moderate-muslims-rise-up-to-fight-extremism/
<< .....For centuries, the Sufis were men of peace. They followed a spiritual current of Islam that emphasizes moral education, tolerance and a personal link to God. When Somalia plunged into clan wars after the collapse of the central government in 1991, Islam’s extremist Wahhabi strain gained strength amid the anarchy.
But the Sufis engaged in neither the conflict nor politics. When neighboring Ethiopia invaded Somalia in 2006, with covert U.S. backing, to suppress a hard-line Islamist movement, the Sufis remained on the sidelines.
The invasion sparked the rise of the ultra-radical al-Shabab, which swiftly took control of large patches of southern and central Somalia. Al-Shabab fighters soon set their sights on the Sufis, whom they branded as heretics, assassinating Sufi clerics and burning down Sufi shrines. They opened Sufi graves and pulled the bodies out.
“In this world, they kill you. And when you die, you still cannot escape,” said Abdullahi Abdurahman Abu Yousef, a senior Sufi commander.
An uprising begins.....>>

Yes..fundamentalists.

Doesn't it boil down to the 'fundamentals' of a particular faith?

For Christianity.. the 'fundamentals' would be the Nicene Creed for a formulation of the Christian belief about God/Jesus/Holy Spirit.

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

We could then go deeper...to the character and teaching of the One who gave us this final revelation of God. Jesus of Nazareth.

Of one thing we may be sure.. Nowhere in Jesus teaching did he EVER provide for himself any 'sexual benefit' which of course would be a sure sign of falsehood.. as per Moses David Berg of the Children of God (1960s) as his daughter relates.

This cult shares some other interesting 'personalities' which might surprise some.
http://www.thejakartapost.com/files/images/p17_7.jpg
Miss Indonesia...Kerenina Sunny Halim

Berg communicated with his followers through more than 3,000 published letters written over 24 years, referred to as "Mo Letters" by members of the group. By January 1972, Berg introduced through his letters that he was God's prophet for this time, further establishing his spiritual authority within the group. (wiki)

Characteristics of fundamental (inner circle) followers of Berg.

-Group sex
-Child sex
-Regard Berg as 'The Prophet' for his time.

-"Flirty Fishing"
In 1974, David Berg introduced a new proselytization method called Flirty Fishing (or FFing), which encouraged female members to show God's love by engaging in sexual activity with potential converts. Flirty Fishing was practiced by members of Berg's inner circle starting in 1973, and was later introduced to the general membership. By 1978, it was widely practiced by members of the group.

They were very 'fundamental' ..but to Bergs teaching or misunderstanding of the Bible.

A fundamentalist is

Someone who would force others to agree with them.
Someone who will ignore evidence that goes against their beliefs.
Someone who hates people who dont agree with them.
Someone who will hurt those that dont agree with them.
Someone who will lie to support their beliefs.

It is intersting that both Islam and Christianity refer to other beliefs as corrupt teachings. They both cannot be right but both might be wrong.

Alarm bells ring for me in regard to religion (fundamentalism) when various cults separate themselves from mainstream society by rules that disallow contact with others who do not share the same belief (even family members), strict rules about marrying outside the faith, restriction of information to members and the self righteousness or arrogance that goes with thinking your choice represents the only truth.

Mikk's list mirrors my own. Those who persecute others for adopting a different belief is the fundamentalist we should all fear in a secular and democratic society.

My own judgement always comes down to the 'do no harm' test. As an atheist I have no issue with someone's choices despite what I may personally think. It is the abhorrent behaviours and judgements that might be borne from those faiths that people take offence.

Responsibility falls directly to the leaders and mentors within the various faiths to promote the universal good and not be tempted by self righteousness and arrogance, to punish those with whom you disagree.