(September 19, 2009 at 1:42 pm)Arcanus Wrote: I'm sorry but where the hell did I say—or even so much as imply—that it had to do with their being atheists? I mean, besides nowhere at all? Listen, you said fundy atheists "cannot exist by definition," that they cannot exist "in actuality." Such statements are simply false; as I stated and the evidence supports, "fundy atheists can and do exist." Given the availability and accessibility of the internet, the evidence cannot be easily ignored.
But then your statement was gratuitous I would have thought? I mean, what was your point then? Because if an atheist happens to be, for instance a 'fundy' 911 truther, it's nothing to do with his atheism. So what is your point? So it's not a fundy atheist, it's an atheist who happens to be a fundy about something that is apart from his atheism (because atheism is simply disbelieving God).
Because then your statement seems to be "Everyone can be fundamentalist about things, even atheists" because you can get atheists who are fundamentalists about things. Yes obviously - you get people in general who are fundamentalists in all sorts of different things. When atheists are fundamentalist about something else, it's not 'atheist fundamentalism' because it's not part of the definition, it's not part of atheism. They are not 'fundy atheists', otherwise you could call any theist who was a fundy 911 truther a 'fundy theist' even if they weren't fundamentalist about their theism. How would an atheist even be fundamentalist about their single non-belief that=their atheism? If they're militant for instance, then any militancy that could drive them is not due to the fundamental non-belief in and of itself. That all varies. So where and what was your point? Apologies if it was both 1. Blatantly obvious. And 2. Completely missed by me.
EvF
