From Andrew Sullivan's post What Fundamentalism Is:

Fundamentalism can be understood as a particular way of believing one's beliefs rather than referring to the actual content of one's beliefs.

It can be described as holding a belief system is such a way that it mutually excludes all other systems, rejecting other views in direct proportion to how much they differ from one's own. In contrast, the a/theistic approach can be seen as a form of disbelieving what one believes, or rather, believing IN God while remaining dubious concerning what one believes ABOUT God (a distinction that fundamentalism is unable to maintain). This does not actually contradict the idea of orthodoxy but rather allow us to understand it in a new light...

This a/theism is not then some temporary place of uncertainty on the way to spiritual maturity, but rather is something that operates within faith as a type of heat-inducing friction that prevents our liquid images of the divine from cooling and solidifying into idolatrous form," - Peter Rollins, How (Not) to Speak of God.

I understand the bit about fundamentalism involving rejecting other beliefs in proportion to your own. That makes sense. Everything after that reads like incoherent rambling. I'm not sure what the hell "a/theistic" is supposed to refer to...atheists and theists? Lumping those together seems pretty dumb. The stuff he says might apply to theists (or deists), but certainly not to atheists.