tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post3447614559919209947..comments2024-01-10T17:36:15.040-07:00Comments on The Lippard Blog: What to think vs. how to thinkLippardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-91621994434898270432010-12-13T07:52:40.426-07:002010-12-13T07:52:40.426-07:00Your comment actually reminds me of how much Group...Your comment actually reminds me of how much Groupthink there is in 'sceptic' circles, they are 98% left-liberals who not only disagree with religion (Christianity, Scientology, what have you) but positively despise it to the point of attributing every tangetial ill of the human race to these ideas; and due to their Statist bias they can't see that most of what's attributed to religion is actually politics with a religious rationalization on top.<br /><br />I prefer the term 'rationalism' to 'scepticism', since scepticism as a principle can quite naturally be taken to irrational extremes. The flipside of Ockham's Razor is, after all, that it is irrational not to believe in something which best fits the evidence and requires the least assumptions. The dedicated 'sceptic' often descends into absurd solipsist gibberish.<br /><br />Of course, in the tradition of philosophy the word 'rationalist' has certain connotations I would not agree with, but so does 'anarchist'. Screw 'em, I'm taking these words back :PFreeZoneThetanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02975407068369561781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-89704351078443226322010-11-22T06:46:03.563-07:002010-11-22T06:46:03.563-07:00rushmc, Xzanron: What you say makes sense about pe...rushmc, Xzanron: What you say makes sense about people who really are quietist nonbelievers (who may not--probably don't, based on the Pew figures--even refer to or consider themselves as atheists), but I don't think it makes sense about those who self-identify as members of atheist groups.<br /><br />"Anti-theist" could refer to an activist atheist (or someone who's actively against theists), but that's narrower than the definition I'm giving, which is simply anyone who has come to the conclusion that gods don't exist. I consider myself an atheist but have largely given up antitheism unless pressed for an explanation of why I'm an atheist.<br /><br />I take your point, rushmc, that there are many possible gods other than the ones considered--and so I think it's quite possible to consider oneself both atheist (with respect to considered and rejected gods) and agnostic (with respect to unconsidered gods). And I agree that apatheism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-60960205756569866912010-11-22T01:30:24.813-07:002010-11-22T01:30:24.813-07:00Mark Lippard Said:
>>
Here's why I think...Mark Lippard Said:<br />>><br />Here's why I think atheism is more sensible defined in terms of the proposition that gods don't exist--on this definition, an argument for atheism is an argument to the conclusion that gods don't exist.<br /><br />On the "lack of belief" definition, there is no such thing as an argument for atheism, because atheism in that definition isn't a position or proposition.<br /><<<br /><br />You can't impose a definition, you have to accept the definition that society at large is using. Okay, you don't have to, but it just means you'll never be talking from the same basis as anyone else. Just ask the French, with their attempts to control their language, how futile it is to try and impose word meaning and usage rules on a population.<br /><br />You're correct in that lack of belief is difficult to call a position, but then most of the people that consider themselves atheist don't argue a position, it's who they are. You're trying to impose a position where none exists, it's like saying not being racist is a position, or not being sexist is a position. Most people nowadays are that already. I'd go so far as to call that position the natural position (just look at kids in kindergarten, they play happily with anyone regardless of race/gender/colour).<br /><br />Where atheism differs is that unlike asexist, and aracist, there is actually a word for not having a belief. It's almost impossible to define someone by something they are not because in reality it says nothing at all about them. Hence I suspect why you feel the need to try and impose some form of meaning to atheism that actually defines something where there is nothing to define. It's rather hard to argue with something that's nebulous. Atheism, just like asexist and aracist, is a passive state, not an active one. That's what the "a" prefix indicates: absence.<br /><br />It's one of the hardest things about the "atheist movement", if you can even call it that, because it's almost impossible to define it's members because the only thing they have in common is something they don't have. It's like trying to define people whose only commonality is that they don't have a third leg.<br /><br />I think you'll have to come up with a word that isn't already widely used to describe the "lack of belief" variant if you want people to understand what it is you're trying to address.<br /><br />I believe the word for your meaning might well be anti-theist. That is in opposition to, as opposed to a-theist meaning absence of.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00170998692320071371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-87532608001901693372010-11-21T20:31:01.684-07:002010-11-21T20:31:01.684-07:00Me personally? Like the guy in your atheist/agnos...Me personally? Like the guy in your atheist/agnostic definition thread that you linked to, I am a very strong atheist (though not an absolutist) in the "belief" sense and an agnostic in the "nature of knowledge" sense.<br /><br />People in general? I don't see that apatheism and atheism are mutually exclusive. And, in any case, why would you leap to the assumption that someone doesn't care whether god(s) exist(s) or not just because they don't feel the pressing need to persuade others to think the way they do? I can imagine being quite certain that there is no god and all religions have everything all wrong, and yet being quite content to keep that understanding to myself (this is NOT me, but I can easily see it, and have known people for whom this was pretty much true).<br /><br />>>If you think that part of what's wrong with religion is that it claims that gods exist, and that's probably false<br /><br />I think it goes a lot deeper than this. There are an infinite number of "gods" that one can imagine (and another infinity of gods that one cannot) that bear no relation to any of the gods described by religions on earth. What's wrong with religion is more than that they miss the fact that there is no god--it's that they create models of god(s) that are patently false even if there WERE gods out there.Michael C. Rushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11300622174153812004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-40846152572856968542010-11-21T19:23:23.435-07:002010-11-21T19:23:23.435-07:00rushmc: I agree with your 6:24 p.m. comment.
On y...rushmc: I agree with your 6:24 p.m. comment.<br /><br />On your last, perhaps your position is closer to "apatheism"?<br /><br />If you think that part of what's wrong with religion is that it claims that gods exist, and that's probably false, then you're logically committed to the proposition that it's probably true that gods don't exist, and you're an atheist in my sense, not just in a "lack of belief" sense. Either that, or you're committed to the falsity of bivalence, or you fail to draw the logical inference and it never occurs to you to draw it.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-80893542564796411052010-11-21T18:28:50.997-07:002010-11-21T18:28:50.997-07:00>>On the "lack of belief" definiti...>>On the "lack of belief" definition, there is no such thing as an argument for atheism, because atheism in that definition isn't a position or proposition.<br /><br />And what I'm saying is, even if that's the case, what of it? It is not incumbent upon a person who lacks belief in something to proselytize that lack of belief to others. Therefore, a denial of god may be a better <i>strategic</i> position than a simple lack of belief in god, but that is a difference that isn't relevant to a lot of people. Therefore, when you say that your definition is better, I think you have to qualify it by saying that it is better for <i>atheists who want to actively truckerconvert religious believers to atheism</i>.Michael C. Rushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11300622174153812004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-74617308826863804162010-11-21T18:24:27.355-07:002010-11-21T18:24:27.355-07:00>>I think it's pretty clear that there i...>>I think it's pretty clear that there is value to parts of religion independent of belief in a deity. I would also say there's also value in the concept of a deity independent of its existence, though that has declined <br /><br />It's not at all clear to me, but I understand that there are some arguments to that effect, so say I grant you that for the moment.<br /><br />It remains the case that unless the so-called positive values of religion clearly and dominantly outweigh the tremendous negative value of religion in society and in the lives of individuals (and I don't think this case can be made persuasively), then it is a net negative in the world that should be countered and diminished and replaced with non-religious mechanisms to address any previously-religious successes (e.g., charity, fellowship gatherings, intervention in the well-being of the sick and the elderly, etc.). <br /><br />A secular solution is always preferable to one tainted by irrationality, superstition, and the help that comes with religious strings attached.Michael C. Rushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11300622174153812004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-11170757341956437212010-11-21T16:59:54.533-07:002010-11-21T16:59:54.533-07:00Here's why I think atheism is more sensible de...Here's why I think atheism is more sensible defined in terms of the proposition that gods don't exist--on this definition, an argument for atheism is an argument to the conclusion that gods don't exist.<br /><br />On the "lack of belief" definition, there is no such thing as an argument for atheism, because atheism in that definition isn't a position or proposition.<br /><br />To put it another way--the primary reason why anyone would want to try to persuade someone to stop having a belief in God would be if they though that such a belief was false, i.e., that gods don't exist. Belief that "God exists" is false is equivalent to belief that "God does not exist" is true. Does the lack of belief definition of atheism purport that the former is false but that the latter's negation is not true?Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-35869692851120371202010-11-21T16:26:59.067-07:002010-11-21T16:26:59.067-07:00Saying "I don't believe in God" or a...Saying "I don't believe in God" or answering no to "Do you believe in God?" is potentially ambiguous between disbelief and nonbelief, but more likely reflects disbelief--a considered rejection, not an unconsidered mere lack of belief of the sort held by children who have never been presented with the concept.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-42493228639269152382010-11-21T16:20:41.588-07:002010-11-21T16:20:41.588-07:00For some reason the Telegraph link isn't worki...For some reason the Telegraph link isn't working, so here it is again: http://bit.ly/aX9uROAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00170998692320071371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-40213304588358218662010-11-21T16:17:12.408-07:002010-11-21T16:17:12.408-07:00The "common" use of the word atheist fit...The "common" use of the word atheist fits my definition, not yours; i.e. lack of belief.<br /><br />Ed Milliband (Leader of 2nd largest party in the UK) is an atheist (<a rel="nofollow">Telegraph</a>)<br /><br />Nick Clegg (Leader of the 3rd largest party in the UK, and currently Deputy Prime Minister in the coalition government) is also an atheist. (<a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3074541.ece" rel="nofollow">The Times</a>)<br /><br />They both call themselves atheists, and given their prominent positions it's clear by their actions and attitudes they fit my definition, not yours. In point of fact, they fail of match any of your 3 points, that you say "atheists" follow.<br /><br />Perhaps this is another case of "divided by a common language", or maybe there are other reasons.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00170998692320071371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-75131341422560695682010-11-21T15:09:09.728-07:002010-11-21T15:09:09.728-07:00I wrote: "I also have to say that I think rel...I wrote: "I also have to say that I think religious notions including the idea of a God in the abstract is not entirely valueless and without merit--I'm not sure how one could reach that conclusion without being a "strong atheist" in Dawkins' terms."<br /><br />To which rushmc replied: "I certainly don't see that the one follows from the other at all. What sort of "notions" are you thinking of here? Social behaviors? Because they could all be deduced WITHOUT reference to god or religious obligation."<br /><br />I think you're correct to challenge the last part of what I said--one can make absolute statements without absolute certainty for the same reason one can be an atheist without absolute certainty. So I retract that proposed implication.<br /><br />And yes, I did also have in mind the social aspects of religion, which can exist independently of a belief in God, as both humanism and other existing religious practices demonstrate.<br /><br />I think it's pretty clear that there is value to parts of religion independent of belief in a deity. I would also say there's also value in the concept of a deity independent of its existence, though that has declined significantly over time, as LaPlace noted at a time when it had more value than it does today.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-34689549651811491512010-11-21T14:15:21.303-07:002010-11-21T14:15:21.303-07:00rushmc: Skepticon came about because of one guy, J...rushmc: Skepticon came about because of one guy, J.T. Eberhard, though I'm not sure if he's now built any kind of formal organization to support it. I think it's safe to say that he's the major influence on its content and direction.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-87217895198364366592010-11-21T14:11:09.305-07:002010-11-21T14:11:09.305-07:00rushmc: My conclusion in that regard may be due to...rushmc: My conclusion in that regard may be due to sampling error. There seems to be some contradictory data, my statement was based on a <a href="http://religions.pewforum.org/affiliations" rel="nofollow">Pew Center religious affiliation study</a> that showed the U.S. population to self-identify as 2.4% agnostic and 1.6% as atheist. I believe that's the same study that oddly found that 21% of self-identified atheists answered "yes" to the question of whether they believe in God or a higher power.<br /><br />I just now came across <a href="http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1181/religious-identification-of-those-who-do-not-believe-in-god" rel="nofollow">a 2009 Pew Center study</a> that shows larger numbers for atheists than agnostics of those who say they don't believe in God or a higher power (24% vs. 15%), though many more identify as nothing at all or as members of an organized religion (oddly enough).<br /><br />I suspect it may be better to rely on the answer to the "do you believe in God or a higher power" question first, and then look at the percentages, in which case the third of my three points is mistaken.<br /><br />I agree with what the "a" in atheism means, but etymology doesn't determine usage or meaning.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-53123505690829662212010-11-21T14:05:51.325-07:002010-11-21T14:05:51.325-07:00>>there are people who know the arguments we...>>there are people who know the arguments well and disagree with us, including about 7% of the members of the National Academies of Science<br /><br />Not to nitpick (okay, maybe a nitpick), but I think it would clearly be false to assume that membership in that organization coincides perfectly with "knowing the arguments well." In fact, offhand, one might estimate there to be about a, oh, 7% difference...<br /><br />>>It's clear from this conference's history and Eberhard's motivations and intent that it has been primarily about atheism, not broader skepticism.<br /><br />Does the conference content represent the breakdown of participants' interests, or is the atheism topic excessively imposed in a top-down manner? This is a legitimate question, as I'm not familiar with the conference. But if one were to set up a skeptics conference and say "come present your skeptical topics" and X% turned out to be on religion-related issues, it seems to me difficult (and inappropriate) to ascribe blame (or false advertising) anywhere.<br /><br />Okay, I'm shutting up now. Thanks for the enlightening exchange.Michael C. Rushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11300622174153812004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-37676763750396565042010-11-21T13:56:33.848-07:002010-11-21T13:56:33.848-07:00Mike D wrote: "Certainly there is a distincti...Mike D wrote: "Certainly there is a distinction between skepticism and atheism, but theistic skeptics are clearly guilty of a sort of compartmentalization of their skepticism, insisting that we should be skeptical about homeopathy, irridology, astrology and whatever else, but that when it comes to deities with magic powers that perform miracles, influence people and may just cast you into hell if you don't love them... well golly, we should just "have faith" and it's off limits for skeptics!"<br /><br />What's your evidence for this claim? What theistic skeptic has said that critical thinking is off limits for religion? I think, on the contrary, that many theistic skeptics would say that they have subjected their religious beliefs to skepticism and consider a cosmology with a God in it to be the best explanation of the data they have. You and I disagree with that, but there are people who know the arguments well and disagree with us, including about 7% of the members of the National Academies of Science. (This is a point Neil deGrasse Tyson made at TAM6.)<br /><br />Mike D also wrote: "So to all the people whining that Skepticon was too atheistic because... GASP... 3 of the 15 talks were explicitly atheistic... I say, good riddance."<br /><br />Jeff Wagg made the argument that way, but I think he was mistaken. From the schedule I saw, every talk listed with a title but one was about religion--I counted eight, not three. My complaint about Skepticon and atheism is that if a conference is primarily about atheism, it should be called an atheist conference. It's clear from this conference's history and Eberhard's motivations and intent that it has been primarily about atheism, not broader skepticism. It's fair to call an atheism conference part of the broader skeptical movement, but there's more to skepticism than skepticism of religion.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-84791168043218325282010-11-21T13:54:28.321-07:002010-11-21T13:54:28.321-07:00>>I also have to say that I think religious ...>>I also have to say that I think religious notions including the idea of a God in the abstract is not entirely valueless and without merit--I'm not sure how one could reach that conclusion without being a "strong atheist" in Dawkins' terms<br /><br />I certainly don't see that the one follows from the other at all. What sort of "notions" are you thinking of here? Social behaviors? Because they could all be deduced WITHOUT reference to god or religious obligation.<br /><br />Your three-point list at the end of your post tells me that you are a very different kind of atheist than I am (to be fair, I already knew this!). I dispute the accuracy of #1 outright and think it may be the result of sampling error. #2 is irrelevant to me, as I couldn't give a fig for "forming groups" or "atheism activism," and I think your focus in this area may be the cause of the above sampling error. Most atheists never participate in any sort of anti-god group in their entire lives. It is enough for them to go about their own lives, quietly not-believing (and maybe even disbelieving). #3 I would say has a lot to do with the way questionnaires are worded and with the strong stigma of self-identifying as an atheist than it does with actual representation.Michael C. Rushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11300622174153812004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-51909609697010732532010-11-21T13:46:13.928-07:002010-11-21T13:46:13.928-07:00Well said, Mike D! Seems to sum up the whole thin...Well said, Mike D! Seems to sum up the whole thing for me.Michael C. Rushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11300622174153812004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-44554745852340248452010-11-21T13:45:28.250-07:002010-11-21T13:45:28.250-07:00"This is my biggest bone of contention with w..."This is my biggest bone of contention with what you've said. Your definition explicitly grants authority to the theist view when no such authority exists.<br /><br />I don't see atheism that way, and neither in my view should anyone who considers themselves to be a skeptic. Atheism is the default position before you are taught about gods. In those countries where religion has receded to the point of irrelevance kids are all simply atheists by default (just as I was/am); because religion has never entered their lives. They don't go around actively denying or denouncing gods, the same way they don't go around actively denying invisible unicorns or gnomes or elves or pixies or everything else supernatural they've not been convinced by adults is real.<br /><br />Are you saying those non-believers, non-theists who have never been touched by religion should be called something else? What would you call them? They're not agnostics, since that implies they accept there's at least some merit to the religious position; which cannot be the case if religion has never figured in their lives."<br /><br />You're calling atheism what I call agnosticism (the terms weak atheism, negative atheism, or implicit atheism are also used). The burden of proof is on the claimant, whether the claim is positive or negative, and the default position is nonbelief rather than disbelief.<br /><br />I don't see that agnosticism implies having given the position consideration, but you're welcome to define it that way. Don't get too hung up on the specific terminology, so long as we're using the same terms in the same way.<br /><br />"The only reason we even have the word atheist is because the religious have been in dominant power for so long that they coined it for anyone that wouldn't toe their line i.e. it's a synonym for traitor/deserter/misfit/outcast; which is exactly how atheists are treated in many religion-dominated countries, up to and including the death penalty.<br /><br />Your definition of atheist gives the high ground to the religious by defining it as dissenting from their position, i.e. you accept their position has merit/value; when other than appeals to numbers their position has no intrinsic worth. You allow the religious to dictate the terms of the debate.<br /><br />Of course, if that is your intent, then I can understand why you picked that as your working definition."<br /><br />I think what you say here is almost exactly right--that is in fact how the term was historically defined and how most speakers understand the term. It's not "giving religious believers the high ground," it's just using the term as most people understand it. Well, and I also have to say that I think religious notions including the idea of a God in the abstract is not entirely valueless and without merit--I'm not sure how one could reach that conclusion without being a "strong atheist" in Dawkins' terms (which is different from how I've used it elsewhere in this comment--he uses it to mean the far right of his scale of disbelief, absolute certainty).<br /><br />See <a href="http://lippard.blogspot.com/2010/01/definitions-of-atheism-and-agnosticism.html" rel="nofollow">my post on atheism vs. agnosticism definitions</a> for why I think there is merit to the definition of atheism as disbelief rather than mere nonbelief. I was persuaded for many years to use atheism to mean both positive and negative atheism, which was prevalent on Usenet alt.atheism in the 1990s (using the terms strong atheism and weak atheism). But I recently have come to the conclusion that it's misleading for three reasons: (1) most atheists really are positive/strong/explicit atheists, not negative/weak/implicit atheists, (2) the implicit version isn't really a position and isn't consistent with the idea of forming groups and engaging in atheist activism, and (3) there are still about twice as many self-identified agnostics as atheists in the U.S.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-60220536383351170742010-11-21T13:41:57.750-07:002010-11-21T13:41:57.750-07:00Certainly there is a distinction between skepticis...Certainly there is a distinction between skepticism and atheism, but theistic skeptics are clearly guilty of a sort of compartmentalization of their skepticism, insisting that we should be skeptical about homeopathy, irridology, astrology and whatever else, but that when it comes to deities with magic powers that perform miracles, influence people and may just cast you into hell if you don't love them... well golly, we should just "have faith" and it's off limits for skeptics!<br /><br />This really boils down to believers, as usual, being way too sensitive. Ideas are not sacred, and until believers are willing to apply the exact same degree of skeptical scrutiny to their supernatural beliefs that they apply to everything else (particularly considering the prominence with which supernatural beliefs factor into a typical believer's choices and outlooks), they are woefully inconsistent skeptics. <br /><br />So to all the people whining that Skepticon was too atheistic because... GASP... 3 of the 15 talks were explicitly atheistic... I say, good riddance. A failure to be more skeptical about the ridiculous supernatural claims of religion is a big problem in our culture and abroad, and we need to start talking about it. If it offends some people because they think their ideas are sacred... tough.Mike Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04097261108461657167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-27323366245760052402010-11-21T13:35:17.373-07:002010-11-21T13:35:17.373-07:00I agree with your last post, Xzanron. The word &q...I agree with your last post, Xzanron. The word "denial" rubs me the wrong way. I have no problem denying that gods exist, but to qualify for atheism I shouldn't have to. <br /><br />Linguistically, the "a" in "atheism" means "not," and a non-theist does not necessarily imply someone who actively denies any particular formulation of diety--merely one who doesn't believe it. A subtle difference, maybe, but by Lippard's definition, I wouldn't be an atheist of the Zumbarotlo religion until someone told me about it and I could actively deny their god, whereas I would argue that I was from birth, since I never believed it, whether I knew about it or not.Michael C. Rushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11300622174153812004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-36654506186765690872010-11-21T13:14:24.786-07:002010-11-21T13:14:24.786-07:00Jim Lippard says:
"I don't define atheis...Jim Lippard says:<br /><br />"I don't define atheism that way--it's simply a denial of the existence of gods, which may be held for good reasons or bad."<br /><br />This is my biggest bone of contention with what you've said. Your definition explicitly grants authority to the theist view when no such authority exists.<br /><br />I don't see atheism that way, and neither in my view should anyone who considers themselves to be a skeptic. Atheism is the default position before you are taught about gods. In those countries where religion has receded to the point of irrelevance kids are all simply atheists by default (just as I was/am); because religion has never entered their lives. They don't go around actively denying or denouncing gods, the same way they don't go around actively denying invisible unicorns or gnomes or elves or pixies or everything else supernatural they've not been convinced by adults is real.<br /><br />Are you saying those non-believers, non-theists who have never been touched by religion should be called something else? What would you call them? They're not agnostics, since that implies they accept there's at least some merit to the religious position; which cannot be the case if religion has never figured in their lives.<br /><br />The only reason we even have the word atheist is because the religious have been in dominant power for so long that they coined it for anyone that wouldn't toe their line i.e. it's a synonym for traitor/deserter/misfit/outcast; which is exactly how atheists are treated in many religion-dominated countries, up to and including the death penalty.<br /><br />Your definition of atheist gives the high ground to the religious by defining it as dissenting from their position, i.e. you accept their position has merit/value; when other than appeals to numbers their position has no intrinsic worth. You allow the religious to dictate the terms of the debate.<br /><br />Of course, if that is your intent, then I can understand why you picked that as your working definition.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00170998692320071371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-2365889560202989562010-11-21T10:56:01.362-07:002010-11-21T10:56:01.362-07:00I've eliminated the duplicates--it seems many ...I've eliminated the duplicates--it seems many of the alleged failures to post actually succeeded.<br /><br />I recommend at least reading the first few chapters of Alston's book which are about the justification of belief based on perception in general. I think that his account of religious experience fails, but more on empirical rather than philosophical grounds--the lack of agreement between believers (let alone between believers and nonbelievers) and the lack of an observed faculty of divine perception.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-57162419498675394302010-11-21T10:51:27.066-07:002010-11-21T10:51:27.066-07:00Re: Alston. I don't think any discussion of ...Re: Alston. I don't think any discussion of the interpretation of experience in a religious mode is likely to have much persuasive force. There are other, far more rational, far more likely explanations for perceptual anomalies. A book like this holds no appeal for me whatsoever, any more than any other that seeks to interpret phenomena to justify preconcieved beliefs.<br /><br />It wasn't the breaking up of the response I was commenting on, but the repetition. But, no matter.<br /><br />It is at least arguable that the foundations of Buddhism are more a philosophy than a religion, before the prayer and other crud accreted around the core. But I'll grant the feasibility of religion-without-god, and they would entail a separate discussion. I maintain, however, that the falsehood of god in monotheistic religions DOES in fact negate other (social, etc.) aspects of the religions. The term "atheism" may not cover this further rejection of religious claims; "anti-religion" may be more accurate but is certainly more provocative and negative-sounding.Michael C. Rushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11300622174153812004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-35610830580381977342010-11-21T10:47:32.467-07:002010-11-21T10:47:32.467-07:00badrescher: You may well be correct that D.J. only...badrescher: You may well be correct that D.J. only meant "worldview" in the sense of an attitude or approach as opposed to comprehensive Weltanschauung.<br /><br />I don't remember specifically what your answer was, but I don't recall finding anything objectionable about it. I found it interesting that several panelists did not want to take the label "skeptic," but preferred "educator."Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.com