While some atheists can certainly be annoying and intolerant as fuck, there is actually no such thing as "fundamentalist" atheism.
The definition of a fundamentalist is someone who won't be swayed by evidence - someone who relies on "faith". This is in contrast to the nonbeliever, who relies on hard evidence and reason.
And believe me, the second an intelligent nonbeliever finds a good enough reason to believe in any particular deity, he will do so immediately.
But what sort of evidence would convince a religious person that his faith is false?
Look up the definition of fundamentalism in dictionary, folks. "Angry" atheists are preaching for rationality and a respect for evidence, not faith.
Would be very cool if there was a way for it to actually work.
I'd take reincarnation over eternal boredom/torture any day of the week.
People who assume that just because the universe exists, it must been have crafted especially for us.
They also assume it must have a purpose. In their desperation for said purpose, they are willing to ignore all evidence to the contrary of the validity of their dogmatic teachings. Such denial often results in much hilarity (see Creationism
If that weren't enough, they go further in assuming the fantastic privilege of an afterlife, when no such evidence for one exists.
Ah, religious people...no wonder they used to think all the planets revolved around the Earth!
If the word anthropocentric doesn't fit in just perfectly here, I don't know what does.
An argument for the existence of God that is ultimately self-refuting.
It states that the universe must have had a beginning because "infinity cannot exist in reality", but then how can God exist?
There are many additional reasons why the Kalam Cosmological Argument fails miserably. Just look them up on the Web if you're interested.
Someone who has the guts to stand up to and criticize some aspects of religion, which for some reason or another remains a complete taboo in our society.
Notice how critics of capitalism aren't called "angry socialists", critics of modern liberalism aren't (or at least shouldn't be) called angry conservatives, etc.
Whenever someone deals with religion, however, he must don kid gloves.
Of course, there will always be those immature twats who take it to the extreme- i admit Brian Flemming is probably one of them. But you still shouldn't discount every one of their messages - keep an open mind! (though not too much so)
It should be noted that the vast majority of religion-critics don't "hate" religion - they're just tired of its near-immunity to criticism and debate.
Outside of religion, cutting off a baby boy's foreskin is most often seen as despicable and wrong. But once the protective shelter of faith is granted, it becomes a taboo to say anything about it.
Another example: the drug peyote is normally illegal, but some native americans out west are allowed to use it for one of their religious rituals - also, voodoo worshippers of a certain haitian-american sect are allowed to sacrifice certain animals (i'm not making this up)
It's weird how the moment the "faith" cover is given, a person's actions are suddenly almost off limits. Somehow, we've just agreed as a society that that's how we should work. And anyone who questions this norm is quickly labeled an "angry atheist".
Odd, don't ya think?