...About your straw-man accusation... When did I misrepresent your argument? I was taking about hypothetically stripping away the non-belief that is atheism, and showing how the fact that the non-belief of Atheism is completely irrelevant to whether the person is fundy or not about the belief system in question. I never accused you of making this point. I'm still trying to find your point. It seems to me you are just saying there are atheists that are fundy about things that are unrelated. Your defence that they can be fundy about related things, is the fact they can be part of world-views that are labelled to be exclusive to atheism...but that has no bearing on the funniness, the funniness is the same without them being atheists. Unlike Religion where only the religious can be fundy about it - by definition. Atheism on the other hand is merely a single non-belief.
So if your point was to just state the obvious, then I am back to my original point that, IMO, your point was gratuitous. A pointless point: Of course atheists can be fundy about things. But I don't see how they can be fundy about anything related to their atheism, if theists can be fundy about the exact same thing. Because if your point is that it is related simply because it is labelled to be so, without it actually making any difference in practice, then your point is, as I said, gratuitous IMO. And an incredibly obvious one.
EvF
So if your point was to just state the obvious, then I am back to my original point that, IMO, your point was gratuitous. A pointless point: Of course atheists can be fundy about things. But I don't see how they can be fundy about anything related to their atheism, if theists can be fundy about the exact same thing. Because if your point is that it is related simply because it is labelled to be so, without it actually making any difference in practice, then your point is, as I said, gratuitous IMO. And an incredibly obvious one.
EvF
