Today, my daughter will mostly be wearing...

[Retorth]

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).

Am I correct to say that this is your definition of Atheism?

[Ryft]

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).

Am I correct to say that this is your definition of Atheism?

No, since that etymology and definition existed long before I did.

[theVOID]

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").

I feel sorry for you Arcanus, and the way you feel the need to attribute characteristics inherent in mankind as a species, or characteristics of life it's self, to your imaginary friend God.

Everything works without him, we don't need such a primitive concept of origins to explain anything.

---

Atheism is a rejection of the concept of God - due to (in most cases i am sure) the fact that not only is there no evidence that he exists or had anything to do with the cosmos being the way it is, but also due to the fact that there is increasingly very little that we don't know and therefore increasingly less need for such a concept.

[Ryft]

I feel sorry for you, Arcanus, and the way you feel the need to attribute characteristics inherent in mankind as a species, or characteristics of life itself, to your imaginary friend God. Everything works without him. We don't need such a primitive concept of origins to explain anything.

Thanks for shoving your beliefs down my throat?

[Retorth]

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).

Am I correct to say that this is your definition of Atheism?

No, since that etymology and definition existed long before I did.

I stand corrected on that point.

However, I do think your usage of the word "fundie" and "atheist" in the same sentence, side by side, is inaccurate. A fundamentalist is indeed one who has a strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles, but a disbelief in god(s) isn't a general idea that one "conforms" to. It is a personal choice that you make. To further add, unlike religion, there is nothing organized about it either.

Re

[Ryft]

A fundamentalist is indeed one who has a strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles, but a disbelief in god(s) isn't a general idea that one conforms to.

And yet, once again, I never said that fundy atheists are fundy about "atheism."

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

My point is, what clarifies as related to atheism, as atheistic - that you can define concisely and use as an argument so as to say that Atheists can be 'fundy' - if atheism is just not believing in God? If an atheistic world-view is simply one without God, is simply related to atheism: Then that could be anything. So I need some examples that you can define. I do not know what you are referring to. How can an atheist be a 'fundy atheist' What is related to not believing in God, that you can define, agree upon and then make the judgement that there are 'fundy atheists'.

'Fundy'= fundamentalist like, but since atheism has no fundamentals other than 1 non-belief (if one non-belief even counts as 'fundamentalism'....), how can atheists be fundamentalist like? I mean, there is one fundamental, but what can be related to that, that an atheist can be 'fundy' about?

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").

Yes, you say they are fundy about their atheistic views you say. But if this is not at all atheism in and of itself, then please define accurately for me what these atheistic views are that you are talking about. Because if it's not at all atheism in and of itself, then you're basically describing atheists that are fundy about other things right? That non-atheists can be fundy about too. In which case I don't see your point.

So give me some examples please.

P.S: Nice sig Bare assertions are indeed not arguments (not talking about you).

EvF

[Ryft]

What clarifies "as related to atheism" as atheistic ... What can be related to [atheism] that an atheist can be fundy about? ... Please define accurately for me what these atheistic views are that you are talking about. ...

I have provided you with two examples, Evie. Consider the most recent example I sumbitted: "metaphysical naturalism" (Msg. #130). That is an atheistic or godless view of reality qualified as being uniquely related to atheism (i.e., it is anathema to theists). And please note, "related to" does not mean "the same as," such that metaphysical naturalism is an atheistic view but is not itself atheism. It is a precise example of an atheistic view which an atheist can be fundy about (and so many are, including some members here).

If it's not atheism in and of itself, then you're basically describing atheists that are fundy about other things, right?

Not "other things" generally and ambiguously, as I have said time and again.

[Edwardo Piet]

So would Secular Humanism be an example then? If an atheist was 'fundy' about that?

As your example about metaphysical naturalism, I assume because it does not include the supernatural?

I still don't see how that's exactly fundamentalism though if that's what you're saying, because you can just take the Secular part off the humanism, and just add the supernatural into the naturalism, and the only difference of course, is the fact there is no longer the single non-belief of atheism. So I don't really see how you can get fundy atheists when the only differences between atheists and non-atheists are that atheists have non-belief in God.

The above is indeed an atheist view to be fundy about. But it could just as easily be a non-atheist view if you take away the single non-belief that is atheism. I don't see what your point is....? That there are world-views that are exclusive to non-belief in God, and yet can easily not be if you take away the non-belief? Well if that's your point, then I concede, but I maintain my original view that it is, IMO, a gratuitous point.

EvF

[Ryft]

The above is indeed an atheist view to be fundy about. But it could just as easily be a [theist] view if you take away the single non-belief that is atheism.

Evie... *facepalms*... if you remove the atheistic feature of the view, it is no longer an atheistic view! I said that "fundy atheists" are fundy about their atheistic views. If your response is to strip the "atheistic views" part from my statement, then your response no longer regards my actual point and courts the Straw Man fallacy.