Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess   Google+ Facebook Twitter Reddit MySpace Instagram Minds SecularNest YouTube
Social networking connections


Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess, and her cat I'm Fidem Turbāre, the non-existent atheist goddess.  I am an advocate for freedom and critical thinking with an emphasis on impartiality.  If you wish to honour me, don't do it with worship or by believing in me (you can send a postcard to me), rather I might suggest that you proclaim "I do not believe in Fidem Turbāre, the non-existent atheist goddess."

Atheism is not a position, it's a classification of "absence of belief in deities and supernatural agents" (examples of supernatural agents include angels, demons, psychic powers, celestial realms, etc., which aren't deities themselves although they depend on and/or support deities).

Official definition of "atheism" (and "atheist"):  http://www.define-atheism.com/

I enjoy the challenge of debate, particularly on topics of freedom of thought and freedom of expression.  On occasion I might intentionally build a straw woman argument (which is the same as the straw man fallacy, but with a dash of serious humour because I'm concerned that there may be an excess of straw men seeking female companionship), but I'll always make a concerted effort to point out when I am building one (which is something that most straw people builders seldom, if ever, do -- from this I've broken traditions on two fronts, one has to do with the sex of the straw person, and the other is to admit to building straw people up beforehand, and I'd be delighted if others also joined me in breaking these traditions for the sake of all straw people).

See also:  My cat, Schrödinger, who represents a stubborn affinity for independence.



I have been an atheist since the very first moment of conciousness; my reasons are based on what I consider to be logical, such as the simple requirement of having verifiable evidence to back up incredible claims (particularly claims of the existence of various deities).  Interestingly, many religions also seem to claim that their deities are the only ones that actually do exist (there seems to be conflicting views among some religious people encricling the determination of which deities are the real ones), thus it seems that an often overlooked similarity between atheists and theists is the lack of beleif in nearly all deities (the obvious difference being that atheists consistently draw the line at not believing in any deities or supernatural powers).

As an example of skepticism, despite certain recent controversial studies, I don't agree that autism has any direct causal relation to religious beliefs, or a lack thereof, rather I contend that autism may naturally tend to lead to more detailed and literal skepticism (which certainly contrasts with faith-based religious ideologies).  Some of the studies I've read seem to lack impartiatlity from the standpoint of assuming that a default position on religion is a fundamental of life, despite the fact that theology was created arbitrarily by people, thus it seems that these particular studies lack a certain logical credibility that categorically removes them from the realm of true impartiality (in other words, they're biased).


My attitude concerning body art, abortion, the right to die, etc.

Occasionally people ask me what my views are regarding the rights of individuals to make personal health decisions, such as the early termination of pregnancy (a.k.a., abortion), the right of an individual to choose to die at any time, and so on.  The following paragraphs explain how I favour the freedom of the individual for it...

I support every individual's right to make personal health decisions about themselves, and their freedom to do so without any requirement to justify it.  That means that I support every person's freedom to get body art (e.g., tattoos, piercings, etc.), terminate their pregnancy, end their life, etc.

I realize that not everyone agrees with me, but my interest is in the fundamental essential that the freedom of the individual be protected in all matters concerning deciding for themselves.  If an individual cannot choose for themselves because of arbitrary restrictions, then it means that someone else is choosing for them which, ultimately, is a form of oppression.

Although I much prefer that individuals who make personal health decisions first be aware of the various potential results and consequences (the scientifically proven consequences, that is, and not the scary superstitious, religious, and/or fairy-tale kinds) so that informed decisions are made, this is merely my personal preference that I regard as arbitrary and incidental to the greater importance of protecting freedom (which I do not favour hindering).


Where to find me on social networking web sites

Home | Profile | Philosophy | Quotations | Links | Postcards | Contact