Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline

From: Jeff Medina <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 16:03:56 -0500

Hate to break it to you, Mike, but you're an atheist. Atheism is lack
of theism, no more, no less. You're not a theist, so you're an
atheist. So sayeth the Grand High Council of the Godless.

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 10:41:41 -0800 (PST), Mike Lorrey <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> --- Samantha Atkins <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >
> > On Mar 6, 2005, at 10:43 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >
> > > Tolerable treatment includes a lack of mockery, disparagement and
> > > insults.
> > >
> >
> > You mean unlike the disparagement of and insults towards atheists you
> > keep cycling on of late?  Is intellectual consistency and integrity a
> > virtue in your system of values?
> 
> Consistency includes giving as gotten. I also believe you are ignoring
> my equally critical evaluation of the quality of many theist arguments.
> So I'm not asking for tolerance of myself, as an agnostic (since until
> I have the knowledge to answer the questions of the Simulation
> Argument, I shall not have gnosis one way or the other), but of the
> atheist for the equally valid/invalid position of the theist as the
> theist should have for the equally valid/invalid position of the
> atheist.
> 
> I hear the atheists here crying all the time about the theist
> majority's political actions with absolutely no attempts being made to
> understand their position (such as the valid moral position of not
> being forced by government to pay for medical procedures the individual
> taxpayer believes are heinously wrong, which is just as wrong and the
> same moral stance as opposing the forcing of atheists to pay taxes that
> would go to support private religious education of other people's
> kids). You can't have your cake and eat it too.
> 
> Now, you generally don't like to be called on this and act very
> vehemently when I have used your own hypocrisy to justify other
> policies you oppose. When are YOU going to show some moral consistency?
> 
> Mike Lorrey
> Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
> "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
> It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
>                                       -William Pitt (1759-1806)
> Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

---

From: Damien Broderick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 15:51:32 -0600

At 04:03 PM 3/7/2005 -0500, Jeff Medina wrote:

>of theism, no more, no less.

That's consistent with such usage as `apolitical', which means `indifferent 
to politics', not `against politics', let alone `one who maintains that 
politics does not exist'. `Adiabatic' means `neutral with regard to heat, 
neither giving nor receiving', by contrast with `diabatic', meaning 
`involving heat transfer'.

But usage is what gives language its meaning, for otherwise `momentarily' 
would means `very briefly' rather than `any minute now', and `presently' 
would mean `any minute now', rather than `at this moment'. And contemporary 
usage seems to be, alas, that `a-theist' means `one who denies the reality 
or possibility or even intelligibility of any deity or claims thereof', or 
even `wickedly opposed to the True God, and therefore deserving of hatred, 
contempt and exclusion from the company of all decent God-fearing Men'. 
Paradigm lost.

Damien Broderick

---

From: "Brian Lee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 17:14:33 -0500

Atheism, like most religion/belief sets, has a hard time getting a solid 
definition pinned down. As a result you cannot say that anyone who is not a 
theist is an atheist. For example, Mike says he's "agnostic", so he is not 
an atheist in the sense that he does not believe that no god exists.

It's been argued around a lot, but believing (realizing, logically deducing, 
etc) that there is no valid belief system is still a belief system/ life 
philosophy/ religion / whatever.

BAL

>From: Jeff Medina <[email-masked]>
>To: ExI chat list <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Atheism in Decline
>Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 16:03:56 -0500
>

---

From: Samantha Atkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 14:42:42 -0800

> theist should have for the equally valid/invalid position of the

I was trying to gently call you on acting like a jerk.  Apparently my 
efforts are misplaced as you immediately dive into self-justification 
and further attacks.

There is nothing invalid about "I do not believe XXX due to 
insufficient evidence, etc."  You do not have the high ground simply 
for making up some way XXX could maybe, sort of be so and then saying 
that since you have no way (mostly by construction) of proving the 
negative that the imagined scenario is not the case that you most say 
you have no way of knowing whether XXX is the case and therefore you 
will only say that you don't know and ride the fence.   In my opinion 
this is a refusal to admit that by standards you apply elsewhere in 
your life you do not believe there is a god and are not in the least 
justified to equivocate.    In my opinion because your position is 
shaky you lash out against those that simply say they do not believe 
this XXX is the case.   Argument after argument where you attempt to 
justify you stance and attacks on others who do not share it has been 
countered.  Yet you continue with the very same arguments already shown 
lacking.  Surely this is enough for you to see that something other 
than rationality is spurring you on.

- samantha

---

From: Jeff Medina <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 19:05:36 -0500

> But usage is what gives language its meaning,

This is precisely what I defer to in declaring said meaning. But it
does not stand alone; when more than one usage circulates with
frequency, it is the group itself whose definition I would propose to
be "the right one."

Some analogous situations are the majority of ignorant Americans and
their understanding and usage of the word "evolution" as contrasted
with the usage of evolutionary biologists, and the majority of
ignorant Americans and their disdainful usage of the term "philosophy"
as contrasted with the usage of professional philosophers. The latter
two groups are outnumbered, to be sure -- do you suggest we take up
the majoritarian use of evolution & philosophy as its meaning in our
discussions?

Equally, my interaction with atheists, the Free Thought movement, and
philosophers of religion & of naturalism suggests the proper usage is
in fact not what the majority of common folk tend to think it should
be.

"Paradigm lost."
I'll pine that loss, Damien, but continue undaunted all the same.