a threaded conversation with the diety of atheism, austin cline

8/14/2019 A Threaded Conversation with the Diety of Atheism, Austin Cline

1/4

A Threaded Conversation with the Diety of Atheism, Austin Cline

Cline's column: 9.12.08"Atheism is only the absence of belief in gods, so there is nothing self-contradictory if atheists believe in astrology, alien abductions, Bigfoot, psychicpowers, and a host of other mystical, supernatural, and paranormal things. Beingan atheist doesn't mean being a skeptic, and vice-versa. However, paranormalclaims aren't very different from religious ones and a relevant atheism is one

based upon a consistently and broadly applied skepticism, not one focused solelyon religion or theism. Austin Cline http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/09/12/why-should-atheists-be-more-skeptical-why-is-skepticism-relevant-to-atheism.htm

Me: 9.12.08"Atheism is NOT only the absence of belief in gods. As an atheist blogger, I cantell you its about faith versus reason. Atheists do not have faith, and relyon reason. An atheist who has supernatural beliefs like astrology is acontradiction in terms. My blog todayhttp://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/2008/09/non-reductive-monism.html is aboutreductive monism vs. non-reductive monism, and why reductive monism cannotwin arguments with theists.

"If you go back in your archives begining August 7, thread #41223 re: strongatheism vs. weak atheism, you will see the silly arguments made by atheistsagainst my black-and-white statement that gods dont exist. One person asked meif, since I didnt believe gods exist, did I believe Alexander the Great had beenreal, since he had been deified?

OMG! The reductionists even argue with other atheists!Curtis Edward Clark

Cline: 9.12.08"'Atheism is NOT only the absence of belief in gods.'

"Yes, it is. Thats the definition.

"'As an atheist blogger, I can tell you its about faith versus reason.'

"Youre mistaken. There is nothing about atheism that prevents a person fromhaving faith or believing in any manner of nonsense. Being an atheist doesntmean a person is necessarily rational, reasonable, intelligent, moral, civil, oranything else.

"'An atheist who has supernatural beliefs like astrology is a contradiction interms.'"

"That would only be true if the definition of atheism were absence of belief inthe supernatural. That, however, is not the definition of atheism. The definition

of atheism is absence of belief in gods.

"Its true that most atheist in the West today dont believe in the supernaturaland dont have faith in things in a manner analogous to how theists have faithin gods, but that is simply a function of contemporary culture and environment.Not all atheists even in the West are like that, and not all atheists in all otherplaces and at all other times are like that.

"You should be careful not to assume that every position you happen to hold is onethat all atheists must therefore also hold. That would be arrogant.


2/4

"The definition of atheism is as simple and broad as theism. Defining atheism asyou have is a bit like trying to define mere theism as the same as Christianity.

"'If you go back in your archives begining August 7, thread #41223 re: strongatheism vs. weak atheism

"First, youre talking about a forum thread."Second, I am quite familiar with that forum thread and I noticed that you fail to

support your arguments. Ive linked to that thread above so others can see. Youhave commented on things I have written here, but only on the basis of appallingmisrepresentations. You are long on unsupported claims, but short on crediblearguments and facts." [italics added by me, Clark, because they become relevantbelow.]

Me: 9/12/08"I wrote a long reply, using facts garnered from Dr. Quentin Smith, Tom Clark,and Tibor Machan. Ive met Smith, argued with Clark, and was informed by Machanabout Clarks reductionism, which led me to the subject of monism, which you didnot address.Then when I sent it, I was told my email address was incorrect, go back. In goingback, I lost the entire reply. I hope it got through. If it did get through, I

hope the facts I presented, including why theists ought to be made the skepticsto the naturalist position, rather than making us their skeptics, were acceptableto you.If it didnt get through, please fix your system so that in the future, suchlosses do not occur.Sincerely,Curtis Edward Clark

Cline: 9.13.08"'the subject of monism, which you did not address. '"

"When it comes to the definition of atheism, its irrelevant. The subject ofconsulting a dictionary is usually quite sufficient. [italics added]

"If it didnt get through, please fix your system so that in the future, suchlosses do not occur.'"Im not responsible for the software on this site any more than you areresponsible for the blogging software you use."

Me: 9.13.08

"Ok. So reductionism has nothing to do with the subject. I'll bite."But when you say I fail to support my arguments, and that I write on the 'basisof appalling misrepresentations [ ] long on unsupported claims, but short oncredible arguments and facts,' did you notice that in each of my blogs I useother, more accomplished thinkers than myself and I attribute them all?

"No, of course not. You didn't bother looking. Are all my authorities incorect, orare they merely authorities you find 'short on credible arguments and facts?'

"For example, in my piece about reductionism, http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/I quoted Tom Clark (Naturalism.Org), Raul Corazzon, Ayn Rand, Boethius, TheStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, B.A.G. Fuller, and Wikipedia.

"Please don't say I'm short on facts. I never write a word without excessively,compulsively, doing background on it. I rarely see you attribute anyone butyourself.


3/4

"And as I stated in the previous comment, I've argued with Tom Clark, who,frankly, was close-mouthed with any anwer to my questions at all, let alone with acredible answer. I've discussed that discussion with Tibor Machan who agreed withme. (Talk about using authorities!)

"And Dr. Quentin Smith, whom I've met, wrote: "Naturalist philosophers need torethink their goals. In part this involves clearly distinguishing between

philosophical goals and cultural consequences of the attainment or pursuit ofthese goals.

"'One of the four goals of informed naturalists,' Smith writes, is to, 'Reclassifythe philosophy of religion as a subfield of naturalism, viz. skepticism aboutnaturalism, so that the position in the various fields of philosophy formerlyoccupied by 'the philosophy of religion' is replaced by the field 'the philosophyof naturalism.'

"'The fourth goal is to justifiably reformulate, and answer, the two basicontological why-questions that medieval philosophers took over from the Greco-Roman naturalists, and which have (for the most part) remained ever since'questions asked in the field of the philosophy of religion.' The successful

accomplishments of these four tasks will restore academia to the mainstreamsecularization it possessed before the post-1967 breakdown in the field ofphilosophy.' http://www.philoonline.org/library/smith_4_2.htm

"This means overcoming theism with non-reductionism. This means not playing theskeptic, as opposed to 'a relevant atheism [ ] based upon a consistently andbroadly applied skepticism.' We need to make the theists the skeptics, accordingto Smith.

"It would seem that in 'distinguishing between philosophical goals and culturalconsequences,' you are the cultural expert, whereas I focus on the philosophy,backed by world renowned experts. [I should have stated "even if they back myargument against their position."]

"I was interested in your blog because I thought I could use it philosophically.[But] I seem to be arguing against you. We seem we have different goals, so pleaselets keep this civil betwen us:

"You say I wrote you on the 'basis of appalling misrepresentations. You are longon unsupported claims, but short on credible arguments and facts.'

"I think you cannot now claim I misrepresent all the people I attribute in myblog; nor can you say I am short on credibility, unless you wish to claim all ofmy attributions have no credibility.

"Let me apologize for making it sound as if the posting snafu was your fault. I

meant for it to be applied to About.Com, and I can see how you would have taken mywords. I am sorry. It was frustrating to click my email address from the drop-down, only to have About.Com claim it was not a valid email, and then to destroymy comment.

"You stick with your 'culture.' I'll stick with my ontology, metaphysics, andepistemic principles. You continue to write as the diety of atheist culture yourfans take you to be; I will continue to write like the expert I someday hope to becredibly accepted as.

"As I said in one of those older threads, this is why I hate getting into threads.


4/4

I did not attack you personally in my first comment, only commenting on what yousaid.

"You on the other hand, attacked my credibility and facts, which I have now provenare not all my own opinion; and I've proved that I have authorities upon whom Ican rely for straight answers and help when I need it. I guess you are not one ofthem.

"This is the last time I will reply. I hate threads.Sincerely,Curtis Edward Clark

Closing comments to this thread, not sent to Cline: In an attempt not to be"arrogant," which Cline alluded to, I referenced a dictionary:

"Atheism: (Gr. a, no; theos, god) Two uses of the term:

1. The belief that there is no God.

2. Some philosophers have been called "atheistic" because they have not held to abelief in a personal God. Atheism in this sense means "not theistic."The former meaning of the term is a literal rendering. The latter meaning is aless rigorous use of the term although widely current in the history of thought.""Dictionary of Philosophy"; Runes

Now, Mr. Cline, I interpret the belief that there is no god to be different from"the absence of belief in gods," because as you yourself stated, people who merelyhave an absence of belief in gods can still find themselves involved in all sortsof supernatural enterprises, like astrology, hand reading, tea reading, ghosthunting, etc.

But somone one with a belief that there is no god may be presumed to also believe

there is nothing supernatural; or I would hope it could be presumed, otherwisethere is not an iota of distinction in the definitions:

"[M]an's ethical values, compulsions, activities, and restraints can be justifiedby non-reductive monism, [ http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/2008/09/non-reductive-monism.html ] without recourse to supernatural sanctions, and hishighest good pursued and attained under natural conditions, without expectation ofa supernatural destiny."(amended from B.A.G.Fullerhttp://www.ditext.com/runes/n.html see Naturalism)

That, Mr. Cline, is my definition of "atheism," taken from two, not one, source.Have a good day, sir!

Please send all comments to

mailto:[email protected]

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the sm of theAcademy of Metaphysical Naturalism tm, the educational arm of the Assemblage.This publication 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing

a threaded conversation with the diety of atheism, austin cline

Documents