http://www.atheist-community.org/atheisteve/?id=50

That’s pretty funny!

- You said you were leaving but now you’re back!
- You claim I’m parsing language when you’re trying to define atheism as having a neutral stance about belief in god. You said: “That’s what atheism is. Reserving judgment on god.” (I could do more on this since you posted that Russell quote – I was hoping you would. But you REALLY wouldn’t like it, so …)
- You don’t even realize I’m mocking your recommendations to the NCSE. You don’t seem to be able to comprehend that science advocacy organizations don’t have to have the same goals as someone interested in advocating for their own personal position on religion (atheism)
- You’re projecting your behaviors onto me (and misrepresenting my words while doing it): “You accuse me of lumping together fundamentists with all believers while lumping all so-called atheists into the “strong atheism” category.” Funny, you seem to have forgotten that I pointed out “Well, I like Mooney’s atheism, I think John Pieret has interesting things to say, I occasionally check out John Wilkin – he’s the one I got the “position on religion” line from. Carl Sagan, Joshua Rosenau, Eugenie Scott … ”
In short, JJE, you too are busted.

Look, I told you I’m done discussing this topic with you. I might have changed my mind if you stayed on topic and made some relevant points. But no, you continue to parse language used in peripheral points using a personal standard that applies only in the mind of TB. I even indulged your parsing for a while. But if that’s all you’ve got, then it isn’t a discussion worth having. When you learn cogent argument and how to stay on point, you’ll be worth my time. Until then, nope.

“In either case, an atheist could very well have a religious position OR agenda. It would be peculiar to suggest an atheist would have a religous BELIEF, but since nobody said that, that’s not at issue.”

I don’t agree. Agenda implies involvement. Religious agenda implies a plan that is religious. You’re denying saying what you said. But if you want to run away, JJE, feel free.

You said: “That’s what atheism is. Reserving judgment on god.”
I disputed that definition of atheism. From the internet infidels site:
“What is an Atheist? An atheist is a person who does not believe that any gods exist.”

Oh, and, one of the definitions of synonym is a “word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language. “Nearly the same is not the same as the same.

You want to go back? You can, I put up page numbers. Fact is, I put up an extensive listing:

“From page 173 to page 185 there are detailed endnotes with citations to back up the assertions in Chapter 8. Not just notations, but full discussion in some cases of what the work referenced says. There are references to books such as those written by Ken Miller, Sam Harris, John Hedley Brooke, David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, Robert T. Pennock and Stephen J. Gould. Quotes by Eugenie Scott, Pennock, Miller, John Haught, Matt Cartmill and Sen. Sam Brownback. There are passeges from the testimony of the Dover trial, and a quote from the judge’s opinion. There are references to articles regarding science education by William W. Cobern and Shawn K. Stover. And that’s not even everything.”

Your dismissal of the evidence, never naming the US Senator after all the hints I gave you and finally misrepresenting the Senator’s quote by saying “the quip from the US senator are about Americans trusting more in science than religion.”

This is online at the New York Times! “If, on the other hand, it (evolution) means assenting to an exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world that holds no place for a guiding intelligence, then I reject it.”

Sorbet, you’re busted.

Hard to believe. Your response makes it clear that you either don’t have the book or you don’t want to make the simplest efforts to back up your assertions with evidence. You are nothing but a hypocrite who wants to pile on others when you cannot summon up even the most rudimentary evidence to support your contention (other than screaming “I have read the book, you haven’t!!”). I don’t mind putting up some page numbers here, but you don’t get to make the demands here since you were the one who participated in the whole furor about militant atheism. Go back and take a look.

I’m not trying to impose my position on religion on other people. That’s what you’re trying to do by attempting to set standards and goals for a science advocacy organization like the NCSE

J.J.E.:

you explicitly (as well as implicitly) accuse me of following a religious agenda in my policy recommendations.

TB:

That is not the same as religious belief.

Another non-sequitur. For what it’s worth, I agree; neither “position” nor “agenda” are the same as “belief”. Importantly, nor did I say either was. Do you care to clarify where I made that equivalence? Do you have a big preference on which term I use? “Agenda” versus “position”? I’m fine with either. I’d be willing to pick one to get this conversation beyond your word parsing.

So, do you prefer if I express my ideas in terms of having a “position” (synonyms: stance, perspective, approach, slant, thinking, policy, feelings)?

Or do think having an “agenda” (synonyms: plan, progam, motive) would better suit me?

In either case, an atheist could very well have a religious position OR agenda. It would be peculiar to suggest an atheist would have a religous BELIEF, but since nobody said that, that’s not at issue.

And calling me a troll? For expressing nuance in the terms of a religious debate? Are you kidding!? This comes in the context of you asking for nuance in distinguishing believers.

“And by doing that you seem to be doing what other NAs have done: imply that all religious people are essentially the same as fundamentalists.”

Of course I DIDN’T imply that religious people are fundamentalists. But of course, your plea for nuance goes only one direction. You eschew nuance when it comes to complicating your argument. You accuse me of lumping together fundamentists with all believers while lumping all so-called atheists into the “strong atheism” category. Your inability to recognize that parallel is a bit off-putting.

In the Cambridge Companions to Philosophy series of edited books, the book on the topic “atheism” alone devotes the introduction as well as the first chapter to defining atheism and placing it in its historical and social context. Russell and Huxley wrote volumes concerning the nuances, which I’ve quoted for clarity in addition to my first (personal) definition in #269. And you characterize my trying to communicate such nuance as misusing language. That belies a very depauperate view of the richness of language. Not to mention that this bit of nuance is so common that it is present in my handy “Oxford American Writer’s Thesaurus” which gives synonyms of atheist including: nonbeliever, disbeliever, unbeliever, skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas, agnostic; nihilist.

Or maybe we should try another source in case you don’t have a copy of that particular thesaurus lying around. Let’s try Google’s “define:” keyword. Try the search phrase “define:atheism”. What do you get?

The first three “related words” are weak atheism, atheism in india, strong atheism. Hmmm. I wonder if there is a distinction that those “related words” are trying to convey? Let’s save that for later. For now, ignore the related words and look at the actual definition we came to see.

The first hit shows:

# the doctrine or belief that there is no God
# a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

So, two definitions from the very first hit: one is a positive, stronger claim and one a negative, weaker claim. Is there any connection to that weak atheism above in the related words section? Let’s click and find out.

After clicking, we get three sites and three new defintion hits:

# Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept as true the proposition “gods do not exist”. …

# is the absence of belief in gods.

# may also be considered a form of agnosticism, since weak atheists do not deny the claim that a single deity or group of deities exist

The first is a Wikipedia link comparing and contrasting weak and strong atheism. The second is a synonym for definition #2 of “atheism” that we already saw. So, yes, there is a connection. And damned if the 3rd one isn’t “agnosticism”.

So, you can now stop asserting that the defintions of atheism and agnosticism aren’t controversial enough that at two run of the references (as well as many respected philosophers) acknowledge that in ordinary conversation, the simple terms “atheism” and “agnosticism” aren’t unambiguous.

Let’s review:

TB:
“If we can’t trust you to express yourself using commonly understood language correctly, how can we trust anything you say?”

Two problems. I am using commonly understood language correctly and even took time to disambiguate above. Even if I didn’t, conventional meanings of the words as well as philosophical references as well as the original coiner of the word “agnosticism” all indicate congruence with my usage. The second problem is poor logic: “If J.J.E. is wrong on X how can we trust him on anything else?” Well, you see, it doesn’t matter unless “anything you say” happens to be directly related to “X” (in this case your contrived and false case of “commonly understood language”), then being wrong on one argument doesn’t impugn others. This is an odd appeal to authority. As if independent arguments would be any more or less reliable based on mistakes in unrelated arguments.

Anyway, the offer of Sagan’s DHW still stands. But my discussion with you unfortunately ends now. You have the floor.

he says “…you explicitly (as well as implicitly) accuse me of following a religious agenda in my policy recommendations.”

No I do not. I say you take a position on religion. That is not the same as religious belief. Try and wrap your mind around that before you make accusations.