system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
The term "radical atheist" is invalid in the context relative to "radical Christian". CMV.

A radical Christian would follow the bible to an extreme extent. I think it's fair to say that this is generally not ideal for others. What exactly does a radical atheist do? Any act by an atheist would not associate atheism to it because atheism only declares a lack of belief and nothing else.

The Christian being referred to here isn't solely one that believes in Christ and his teachings, but those who follow the bible to some extent. A belief in Christ and his teachings is hardly a religion if the bible is excluded. You do not have to be religious to acknowledge that Christ was a real person, and that his general lessons for life are good ones and should be used as guidance. I think one would be more of a humanist at that point.

Semantics aside, the same cannot be said about atheism. There is no "bible" for atheism, and there are no guidelines set in stone (excluding the lack of belief). Is Richard Dawkins a radical atheist? If not, what exactly makes someone a radical atheist? The point being that religions can be followed to a radical extent by nature, atheism can't.

Being a "radical atheist" does not make sense because there is no room for misinterpretation because there are no rules/changes to enforce onto others.From this, you may think, "Ah! But someone who enforces atheism would be a radical by your logic!". However, this would be false. You would not call a doctor who encourages a healthy diet a radical doctor. Encouraging a healthy diet is not related to being a doctor in any way. Likewise, encouraging atheism is not related to atheism either.

To try and cover points that may be brought up, lets give the counter-point: encouraging and enforcing are two different things, someone who enforces atheism instead of encouraging atheism would be a radical atheist. This would also be false due to the point I make above, enforcing atheism is not related to atheism whatsoever. At this point, you could call such a person a radical; you could even call him a radical atheist. However, this is in a different context than when the term "radical Christian" is used. In this context, "radical" and "atheist" are two different adjectives, whereas in the context of the term "radical Christian", a single adjective is being used. To simplify with an example, I propose the terms "athletic person" and "athlete". A person may be (but is not exclusive to being) athletic. An athlete is exclusive to a person whom the definition of "athletic" applies to.

I am not comparing based on literal definitions, I am comparing based on context of the terms which is closer to the discussion of "radical atheism". If you believe otherwise, please provide a clear definition on what a radical atheist does/is.
gpt
rad·i·cal  
/ˈradikəl/
Adjective
(esp. of change or action) Relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough.
Noun
A person who advocates thorough or complete political or social reform.


In this sense, an atheist can indeed be radical, and quite a few are. This is the same use of the world people employ when talking about radical Christians. The problem here is not that people are being inconsistent when using the word radical to refer to atheists and Christians, the problem is that you've misunderstood the usage of radical in reference to Christians in the first place.