Are both militant atheism and fundamentalist Christianity like outsider art?

[grayure]

I've been here quite a while now and i'm also aware of what Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and so forth say about atheism and what they see as religion (i.e. theistic religion), and of the approaches made by people on the other side of the debate such as creationists. One of the interesting things about these opinions is that with the possible exception of Dennett they don't correspond closely to academic philosophical or theological views on religion or critical theory. For instance, they don't seem to address hermeneutics in detail, look at the "Sea of Faith" approach or analyse religious language. This reminds me of "outsider art", like graffiti or self-taught naive painters. This is not a criticism, but more about whether these people somehow feel excluded from an arcane debate within the relevant areas of academia. Is it maybe that philosophy and theology have rendered themselves so obscure that people can no longer see the connection, or would they benefit from understanding the terms of those discourses? Do they consciously reject them?
I don't think i'm smart at all and i don't know why you think i think i am. I just have a problem communicating which leads me to choose words which others find obscure. I also think intelligence is illusory.

You seem rather keen on the idea of a dictionary as an authority. All lexicographers do is to go out and find popular usages of words. The term "militant atheist" is quite common and i know people who would describe themselves in such a way. My father is an example.

So far these answers are corroborating my point.