Cheers!

D J Wray
http://www.atotalawareness.com

Division of atheists along “strong/weak” lines is ambiguous. So I prefer to avoid that line of classification.

What all atheists have in common is a denial of any type of dualism. They are naturalist/materialist. There is nothing in this world that cannot be explained without resorting to some kind of mind/body, material/spiritual separation.

The question devolves into how they explain mental phenomenon. As atheistic materialists they need to defend physicalism, that is, there is nothing in what we call consciousness that rises above structure and function. This is essentially what Jackson would call Type-A materialists and along these lines you would find people like Dennett and Lewis.

Type-B materialists would admit to an explanatory gap in consciousness but it does not call for any kind of dualistic requirement. The “gap” might represent s subvenience of consciousness. So while the mind would be a property of the brain, consciousness would simple be subveinent to the physicalism of the mind/brain. I would see Myers and Dawkins as falling into Type-A; maybe someone like Chalmers would fit into type-B. Pinker would probably say that the mind is not a separate entity but rather it is “what the mind does”.

Of course, part of this depends on how one considers atheism; the weak/strong distinction is quite meaningful. Weak atheists simply lack belief in the divine – nothing more, nothing less. I don’t actually know very many strong atheists – those who believe that Gods do not exist; it’s not actually a rational position to take, being, in the end, faith-based.

Myers may be a strong atheist. I think that Dawkins is a weak atheist.

Atheism of science? What in hell is that. Theism means acknowledging some sort of divine entity; atheism means it opposes the acknowledgement of a God. Science is non-theistic means theism or atheism does not enter into the picture. Yes, the New Atheists appropriate science as a means of supporting their atheistic agenda but that is their foolishness and does not alter the non-theistic status of science.

“he admits that you can be a scientist and also religious.”

Is this suppose to be some sort of revelation? Since there are thousands of religious scientists, isn’t that a statement of the obvious?

For example: you keep claiming I’m an atheist. And yet I’ve never said I was an atheist. Would an intelligent person make that assertion without evidence? Would a sane person make that assertion without evidence?

Nope. Stop making yourself look silly, John. You’re really not very good at this ‘argument’ and ’science’ stuff, are you?

I was almost inclined to give you the last word, merely to demonstrate how intellectually-challenged you are, but I’ve decided to note this: please shut up. You’re not making any sense, period.