Today, my daughter will mostly be wearing...

[Edwardo Piet]

...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

[Ryft]

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).

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"?

[theVOID]

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).

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"?

(2) Atheism IMO is a single statement (i reject p) and any other position makes you no longer an Atheist. I have no atheistic views other than that single view and i do not believe any others exist. I for one do not classify anything i believe as an atheistic viewpoint with the exception of rejecting the proposition of God.

As for (5) I think that Deism/Theism VS Atheism is correct as you said, Religion is a system of beliefs and authoritative structure and is more akin to a philosophical position.

[Ryft]

I have no atheistic views, other than that single view. I do not believe any others exist.

So you deny morality. Rare, but not unprecedented (e.g., Jean-Paul Sartre).

[Edwardo Piet]

[quote='Arcanus' pid='35397' dateline='1254113339']

[quote](1) Do you realize I've never said "fundy atheists" are fundy about atheism?[/quote] Yes, and you've emphasized it more than once.

[quote](2) If you strip away the atheistic nature of their views, are those views atheistic any longer? [/quote] No, by definition they are not.

[quote](3) If those views are no longer atheistic, is any relevance to my argument left?[/quote] No.

But there is relevance to my point that the belief system with or without the atheism is no more or less 'fundy', because atheism has no effect on that. So it still seems that your original point that there can be 'fundy atheists' is kind of gratuitous, trivial and undeniably obvious, if all you mean is that there can be atheists who are fundamental about things.

[quote](4) Do you deny that "atheistic views" exist?[/quote] No I do not. If all you mean is any view that is exclusive to those who don't believe in God...

...despite the fact that their atheism makes no difference other than that fact of their disbelief, so this is kind of a trivial thing to speak of, when you speak of 'fundy atheists'

[quote](5) Do you think your "religion vs. atheism" is a fair comparison? Don't you think it should be "theism vs. atheism"?
[/quote]

I only said religion because I perhaps wanted to include deists. So I'm not sure whether I agree with that or not, it depends.

One of my points, mostly directed at your 4th point, is that theists have theistic things to be 'fundy about' that atheists can't, whereas atheists just have things to be 'fundy about' that theists can perhaps be fundy about too...it is merely that it is defined atheistic, the label of the world-view would be different if theists were 'fundy about' them, they are labelled as exclusively atheistic, when taking away the non-belief of atheism doesn't actually change the rest of the worldview at all, so the worldview is basically, perhaps also open to theism. When atheists can't be open to theistic world-views, because they'd have to be theists to do so.

Theistic belief systems have colour, they have beliefs to them, etc. Atheistic ones however, are basically any belief system whatsoever that is without a God.

EvF

[Ryft]

Theists have theistic things to be fundy about that atheists can't.

The accurate flipside of that? "Atheists have atheistic things to be fundy about that theists can't"—

—since no theist will agree to something atheistic, just as no atheist will agree to something theistic. Hence my point that "fundy atheists" are fundy about their atheistic views (as opposed to just any view an atheist can hold, such as "American muscle cars are the best"). Theistic views are views which are predicated on Deity Required (e.g., intelligent design). Atheistic views are views which are predicated on No Deity Required (e.g., natural selection). It is a stark antithesis.

Theistic belief systems have colour

Atheistic belief systems don't?

[Theistic belief systems] have beliefs to them

Tautology Alert! (Oh, and atheistic belief systems have beliefs to them, too. Also tautological.)

Atheistic [belief systems], however, are basically any belief system whatsoever that is without a God.

No, atheistic belief systems are those which are predicated on No Deity Required, which theists cannot agree with. For example, if your view of morality posits No Deity Required for morality to exist and be meaningful, then it is atheistic.