Today, my daughter will mostly be wearing...

[Ryft]

Fundy atheists maybe, but not because they're atheists. ... It's got nothing to do with them being atheists.

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.

[Rhizomorph13]

I may have missed it. At any rate, I did provide that very thing, and in that very thread of yours (Msg. #99). It was in response to Adrian, sorry. I missed where you had asked for it. But surely you were following along and saw me provide Adrian with it?

Arcanus,

Thanks for pointing it out to me. Yes, I was following along but I must have skipped over that part, after all it was just a small "here" in the middle of your argument. I will read that link and get back to you with some questions.

Rhizo

[Edwardo Piet]

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

[Ryft]

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 where and what was your point? Apologies if it was both (i) blatantly obvious and (ii) completely missed by me.

I said, "Fundy atheists can and do exist. They are 'fundy' about their atheistic views (be what they may)." A 9/11 conspiracy theory is not an atheistic view, for nothing atheistic is involved. The fact that an atheist subscribes to it does not make it atheistic.

[Edwardo Piet]

What is 'atheistic' that is definable then?

How can you be a fundy atheist about atheisticthings if we can't agree on what is atheistic? How can that be defined?

Fundamentalism has to be something that can be defined right? How can you have a fundy atheist about vague things that you say to be 'atheistic', what's atheistic?

For instance, one might want to argue that not believing in a 'soul' is atheistic, but how can you define that? Some atheists believe in souls (however few), Rhizo for example.

'Atheistic' all seems kind of vague, not exactly fundamentalism, so what is your point when you speak of 'fundy atheists'? And that they 'do exist'. This confuses me.

Atheistic=Of or pertaining to atheism, right? But what is of or pertaining to atheism, that can be defined precisely enough to support your point? This is what confuses me.

EvF

[Ryft]

What is "of or pertaining to atheism" that can be defined precisely enough to support your point? This is what confuses me.

Pretty much what it says, Evie. This isn't rocket science. Honest. How much clearer can it be: "of or pertaining to atheism."

Wait, maybe you are confused about atheism. Is that it? I guess it's not entirely impossible for an atheist to not know what atheism is, although that would be rather weird. Basically, in a nutshell atheism is the rejection of theism, pretty much by definition because its roots are found in the Greek atheos, which in English would mean—

Come on, really? You know what "atheism" means, Evie. And you have to know what "pertaining" means, and so forth. What's with this Clinton pirouette à la seconde you're pulling? Why are you feigning such an embarrassing level of ignorance? You know very well that atheism is precisely defined: "godless." Which means that atheistic is also precisely defined: "of or pertaining to atheism." Is it that you cannot do the math? It's very simple. If atheism is "godless," then a view is atheistic when it is of, or pertains to, a godless perspective. Still confused? Consider the issue of morality. An atheistic view of morality is one which is godless; that means a morality understood and engaged without any reference to god(s).

This is embarrassing. How in hell can you think "atheistic views" isn't defined precisely enough? How can an atheist be so out of touch with atheism? It's baffling to me.

[Edwardo Piet]

Of course I know what atheism means. That was my whole point. That considering that the definition of atheism, is just the one non-belief, just the rejection of theism - then how can anything exactly be of or pertaining to it in a properly definable sense? : What is your point?

Please give me an example of something atheistic that can't apply to anyone else, to non-atheists. That's what I'm confused about. I thought I made the fact that I obviously know the definition of atheism, clear up above when I said the following quotes in post #123:

[...]something that is apart from his atheism (because atheism is simply disbelieving God).

and this

[...]about their single non-belief that=their atheism?

and this:

not due to the fundamental non-belief in and of itself.

(bolding added in this post, for emphasis)

- And that's all just from that one post.

I've also stated the definition of atheism I believe, probably a few times or more, elsewhere on this thread - and I have in many places over the forums in general.

EvF

[Ryft]

Of course I know what atheism means. That was my whole point. Considering that atheism is defined by just the one non-belief, the rejection of theism ... What is your point?

Holy shit, Evie. Stop eating all that eucharistic fucking spaghetti and start eating more fish or something. Your brain is clearly starving for more Omega 3 in your diet because you're forgetting posts (other than your own) made only hours ago and pretending issues weren't already discussed. I already said (Msg. #117) that my statement did not reference atheism. Try to keep track of the argument, please, because arguing in circles is something that fundies—

Oh, wait. I see. Maybe YOU are one of those fundy atheists and, hence, the love for arguing back around in a circle.

Stop pretending I said they are fundy about atheism. That is an unhelpful Straw Man already obviated. I said 'fundy atheists' are those who fundy about their atheistic views—be what they may, because there are a lot of views an atheist can hold: on ethics, on epistemology, on metaphysics, etc., all of which must be atheistic if he or she is consistent. And don't go forgetting what that words means again: it means those views (whether ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, etc.) are "godless," which means "understood and engaged without any reference to god(s)."

Please give me an example of something atheistic that can't apply to non-atheists. That's what I'm confused about.

... I did. Message #126. It's not even 24 hours old.

[Edwardo Piet]

You went on about the definition of atheism and about how I know what it means. So I just said of course I know what it means and defined it.

So, a 'fundy atheist' is an atheist who is 'fundy' about anything other than believing in God? Because his worldview= any worldview other than one with belief in God?

Theists can equally be 'fundy' about those things too and God. If the 'fundiness' of the 'fundy atheists' is not in any way related to their atheism (as it obviously isn't, and as you accept) then my point which I made up above, is that doesn't that make your point kind of...pointless? Isn't that gratuitous? Because: If an atheistic worldview =any worldview without a God in it, then that coverage is so massive then isn't the point you are making, simply the vacuously true point that "atheists are fundy about things too! Just not God! Other than that they can be fundy about anything that theists are!", or do you have more of a point than that?

EvF

[Ryft]

So a "fundy atheist" is an atheist who is fundy about anything other than believing in God?

Not necessarily—again as I already said previously. For example, an atheist can be fundy about American-made muscle cars, which qualifies as something "other than believing in God" but does not qualify as an "atheistic view." At no time have I argued that atheists are fundy about just any old thing "other than believing in God." This circling about to already addressed points is rather curious and becoming tedious. I implore you, please, when drafting your response to consider whether or not you are raising something we already went over.

If the "fundy atheist" is fundy about things not related to their atheism in any way (as it obviously isn't, and as you accept) ...

The distinction I drew is—again—that they are fundy about their atheistic views, not atheism in and of itself. It certainly is not obvious to me (nor did I accept) that one's atheistic views can somehow be unrelated to atheism. Atheistic views are by definition related to atheism. However, "related to" does not mean "the same as" (i.e., metaphysical naturalism is an "atheistic view" but is not "atheism").