(September 27, 2009 at 8:10 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: About your straw-man accusation: when did I misrepresent your argument?
You didn't, which is probably why I didn't accuse you of the Straw Man fallacy. Your argument, however, if pressed in the direction it's heading, certainly runs the risk of doing so (which is why I described it as courting the fallacy, so we can throw the brakes on that direction).
(September 27, 2009 at 8:10 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: 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 defense, that they can be fundy about related things, is the fact they can be part of worldviews that are labelled to be exclusive to atheism. But that has no bearing on the fundiness, the fundiness 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.
Here are five questions I want you to answer, Evie:
(1) Do you realize I've never said "fundy atheists" are fundy about atheism?
(2) If you strip away the atheistic nature of their views, are those views atheistic any longer?
(3) If those views are no longer atheistic, is any relevance to my argument left?
(4) Do you deny that "atheistic views" exist?
(5) Do you think your "religion vs. atheism" is a fair comparison? Don't you think it should be "theism vs. atheism"?
Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
