Suspension of Blogger

As of today I have decided to suspend writing on a daily basis. Time constraints and various other interests that require my time have made it increasingly harder to maintain a daily blogging schedule. To my readers, I say thank you for your interest. I will be putting more time into the expansion of The Metaphysical Naturalist ©, the glossary that represents the principled descriptions of metaphysical naturalism.

ALSO: visit http://groups.google.com/group/atheist-aa

AND: http://sites.google.com/site/theatheistaa/

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the ^sm of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism ^tm,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger ©,
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra ©, and

The Metaphysical Naturalist ©,

are the educational arms of the LLC and are:

© 2008-2009 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ^tm
mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

The Atheist in A.A. Part II;

How Does An Atheist Navigate Alcoholics Anonymous?
Part II
Working Within the A.A. Idea

Continued From Atheist Survival and Recovery in God-driven Alcoholics Anonymous

(All phrases you will read that are between " " are phrases written in approved A.A. literature. Any phrase you see in italics are phrases used in A.A. but are not necessarily part of any A.A. approved literature--like One Day At A Time, Easy Does It, or Keep Coming Back 'Till You Want to Come Back. I will supplement the official phrases with references, or with live web links from the Big Book, so you will be able to read it for yourself. The Big Book is online free, by the way, and you can--and should--look at it, either online or in a book. http://www.aa.org/bigbookonline/

However, as authors will do, some of what you see in italics are my own writing of things I wish to set apart from the rest of the text.)

In AA we have "12 Traditions" as well as "12 Steps". Tradition One is "Our Common Welfare should come first; personal recovery depends on AA unity." http://www.aa.org/bigbookonline/en_appendicei.cfm

Entering an AA group, knowing people in that group are going to talk about God, higher powers, and spirituality, is for most atheists an unsettling experience. It was not unsettling for me--not in the beginning. I was familiar with A.A. through AlAnon, which is for people who have friends or family who are alcoholics.

Just being with that group helped keep me sober day by day, so that I did not drink in front of the person I was trying to understand and to help.

How do you become a member of a group? Tradition Three states: "The only requirement for A.A. membership is a desire to stop drinking." http://www.aa.org/bigbookonline/en_appendicei.cfm

I have heard many people say they came to their first A.A. meetings with a closed coffee mug full of booze; or that they went to a meeting every day without fail, then left the meeting to go get drunk with their friends.

But they had a desire to stop drinking. They simply didn't know the way, which is to listen, to learn, and to act on what you learn. If you get sober at an in-house clinic somewhere, they will probably use parts of the A.A. program, initiate you in it, and then on your way out the door tell you that the only way to remain sober is to keep going to A.A. meetings! more

The Academy's "Strong Position" on Naturalism

Given the divided nature of the many categories of "Naturalism," which include "strong" to "weak" definitions, it is necessary to state the position of this Academy as "strong;" and just as necessary to add the caveats at the end in order to distinguish this Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism from other metaphysical schools and schools of naturalism:

"Naturalism, challenging the cogency of the cosmological,i mechanical,ii and moral argumentsiii, holds that the universe requires no supernatural cause and government, but is self-existent, self-explanatory, self-operating, and self-directing, that the world-process is neither mechanistic nor anthropocentric, but purposeless, deterministic (except for possible tychistic* events), and only accidentally productive of man; that human life as physical, mental, moral and spiritual phenomena, are ordinary natural events attributable in all respects to the ordinary operations of the laws of nature; and that man's ethical values, compulsions, activities, and restraints can be justified by non-reductive monism, http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/2008/09/non-reductive-monism.html without recourse to supernatural sanctions, and his highest good pursued and attained under natural conditions, without expectation of a supernatural destiny." (amended from B.A.G.Fuller http://www.ditext.com/runes/n.html see Naturalism)

(*Tychism: any theory which regards chance as an objective reality, operative in the cosmos; [ibid])

[definitional caveats] [click here for continuation] Academy's Strong Definition of Naturalism

Atheism is Protected by the Constitution--As Religion

For the purposes of protection under the First Amendment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (May 13, 1997), decided the Orange County N.Y. Department of Probation could not force Robert Warner, an atheist, to attend religion-based alcoholic treatment programs against the dictates of his own beliefs.

The district court agreed with Mr. Warner's argument that these meetings involved a substantial religious element. Participants were told to "believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us," and that they must "turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understand him."

In addition, the "Step" program ordered those participating to "Admit to God ... the exact nature of our wrongs," be "entirely ready to have God remove all these defects ... (and) ask Him to remove our shortcomings," and to seek "through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God, as we (understand) Him. The meetings were also punctuated with frequent prayers of a Christian nature.

"Four months into the program Mr. Warner complained that, as an Atheist, he found the meetings objectionable due to their religious nature. It was then that his probation officer determined that Warner lacked sufficient commitment to the idea of learning the techniques of remaining sober, even though he apparently had not been found in violation of his probation orders to remain sober!

"Attorneys for Mr. Warner relied on a number of legal precedents, including:" [refer to link] http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/alanon1.htm [click here for the continuation] Atheism is Protected by Law

Existence Exists; W. E. Messamore; ACT For America

What “Exists” And Has "Existence"?

Note: Do NOT Click on the Footnote Reference Numbers--They will take you away from this page. Just use them to reference the footnotes.

“Existence” is often referred to as the "Universal Truth.” Sadly, not everyone who asks questions about universal truths knows that they are asking about existence, nor are they always aware of what a “universal” is, nor what “truth” (or “fact” or “reality”) means. It is not uncommon for people to ask, “What is truth?” or “What is reality?” It is not uncommon for them to ask, "Do I exist?"

Often when asking about the “universal truth” it is with the expectation that a secret and mystic explanation will be given, and that perhaps it will be years before they can “divine” what the wise man told them is “the answer to life.”

But more than likely they harbor the wish that they, too, will comprehend this secret, divine, or mystic explanation in one single lecture, in a moment of revelation. Cartoons depict people climbing to the top of a mountain to consult a “wise man.” The comic strip B.C.1 integrated the “wise man” right into the prehistoric era of man, where the “wise men of mysticism,” Socrates and Plato, belong, for those two men are the modern stereotype of the "wise man on the mountain" in Western culture, though both were better thinkers, than to offer the silliness for which they are portrayed.

People who ask about “reality” or “facts” don't always understand that they, too, are asking about existence. Existence is the universal preoccupation of our intellectual lives, because we want to know, “Where did it come from?”

When it is not phrased as "What is reality?" or "How do I know I exist?" or "Isn't the whole world subjective?", or “What exists and what does not?”--then it is provoked of us in the angry, defiant tone of the statement "Prove that I exist!" More often than not it is stated, “Prove God does not exist.”

Knowledge of what exists and what does not has become smudged and greyed, when “existence” has come to be seen merely as the reality of one's “perceptions”; the lines have been blurred, sometimes erased altogether. A person can be convinced that the ego is necessarily egotistical; that nothing one does in life can have any meaning because “in the end we all die”; and that being “dust in the wind” is more significant to the life one leads, than is a statement such as "I rise in the morning to the work of a Man," where "Man" has greater, not less, meaning.

What is the purpose of following a principled life if in the end you just wind up dead? We will get to the answer. more

And What Irony To Find This Blog

After Writing About "Existence"

"Before the scientific community came to a consensus on the Big Bang theory following the discovery of the cosmic radiation echo predicted by Big Bang theorists, many scientists believed in the Steady State theory. In short, they believed that the universe had no definite beginning and that hydrogen atoms were randomly popping into existence somewhere in the universe, supplying the material for all the physical phenomena like stars and planets. Atheists were generally rooting for this theory, understanding that a definite beginning for the physical universe implies its contingency- that it has a cause which is outside itself. As it turned out, the Big Bang has been confirmed in great measure by scientific findings...

"How the atheists managed to adopt the Big Bang theory as evidence for their position confounds me. If there is any interesting history behind this, I’d be curious to know it.

"To elaborate further on why this is a philosophical defeat for atheism: The contemporary atheist philosopher Kai Nielsen is frequently quoted by Christian apologists as saying about causation: “Suppose you suddenly hear a loud bang and you ask me, ‘What made that bang?’ and I reply ‘Nothing, it just happened.’ You would not accept that - in fact you would find my reply quite unintelligible.” Nielsen is quite right on this account. Bangs must have causes because they are finite, contingent events that have a definite beginning."

W. E. Messamore[blog @] http://www.slaying-dragons.com/

A Reply

My reply is taken partially from the top article, and partially from If A Tree Falls In the Forest--the Primacy of Existence and The Loss of Secularism in Naturalism, Part 2: Unjustified True Beliefs:

"If one thing exists in existence, it becomes the proof of the existence of existence," I wrote, above.

This refutes Messamore on his contention that "hydrogen atoms were randomly popping into existence." The theory of "ex nihilo" has long since been abandoned by Christian theologians; things in existence do not just spontaneously appear. If hydrogen atoms actually were randomly popping into existence, they were caused by something else already in existence. What that is may remain unknown for a long time, if in fact "popping hydrogen atoms" turns out to be a justified theory sometime in the future.

Saying that it was God who caused the popping of hydrogen atoms begs two questions: 1) for what purpose God would cause such a thing, or admitting that no human could ever know that answer; and 2) how can this discussion continue between us if God is the automatic answer to everything? more

CAIR Files FEC Complaint

from "Act for America"

The commentary below, from Jihad Watch, discusses the Federal Election Commission complaint that has been filed by CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations). CAIR has filed the complaint alleging that the national distribution this month of the film “Obsession” is an Israeli plot to help get John McCain elected president. In other words, CAIR is using a government agency to try to punish the free speech rights of those who would distribute this must-see film. As far as we can gather, there is no “vote for McCain” messages, either explicitly or implicitly, attached or connected to the distribution. Given the timing of the distribution, it would appear that it was intended to coincide with the 7th anniversary of 9/11. This is not the first action CAIR has taken in its ongoing efforts to suppress our cherished right to free speech. What is most telling is CAIR’s “obsession” with shutting down any speech that would let the American people see the truth about radical Islam. from Act for America" more

actforamerica@donationnet.net

Publishing Note Re: Reader Comments

Comments can now be made at the end of the full article, after clicking "more" at the end of each abbreviated article.

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the sm of the

Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism tm, the educational arm of the Assemblage.

© 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

Atheist Survival and Recovery in God-driven Alcoholics Anonymous

How Does An Atheist Navigate Alcoholics Anonymous?

Part I

You Vs. Theists

I have decided to publish online the efforts I have gone to, and the thoughts I have to deal with as an atheist in the A.A. program, because it is most definitely a "god" and "spirituality" based program.

It's rather easy to be an atheist in A.A., actually, without compromising your principles. The most difficult part would be to find yourself in a group that does not accept your atheism and one way or another tries to convert you. The A.A. so-called Big Book, which is actually called "Alcoholics Anonymous," does at at times seem to make that attempt at winning us over.

But in the end, it does have enough leeway in the way it operates, so that even a die-hard, no-nonsense, there-is-nothing-supernatural-in-the-universe kind of guy like me can come to enjoy the sobriety and the peace of mind and the serenity, not to mention what the Big Book describes as "a new freedom and a new happiness."

Theists don't frighten me. Why should they? They have their beliefs, and I have mine, or none at all, which ever way you wish to see it. Some atheists say they "believe no god exists"; some atheists say they "don't believe a god exists"; some of us say other things. But it all comes down to the idea that the other members of A.A. are going to talk about the "God of their understanding." Even for some theists, the "power greater than themselves," in which they must find the strength to stay sober, starts out as nothing more than a belief in the power of the group itself to help to them.

That is what the A.A. program offers--the place to find the power to stay sober--and so there are Catholics sitting next to Mormons sitting next to Southern Babtists sitting next to New-Agers, Buddhists, Unitarians, and me. As of yet I have found no resistance to my atheism, and my "home group" is more than happy to listen when it is my turn to speak. If you find yourself in an intolerant group, find another group. If there is no other group in your area, there are A.A. chat rooms online. An intolerant group is not the group that A.A.'s founders would have approved of.

You see, when it comes to speaking and listening to other members in an A.A. group, the unwritten rule is, "Take what you need and leave the rest." We say it all the time. In practice this means that you listen to people speak, and you pick up on what they say that comes close to your own experience. From this "taking" you are able to think about your own situation and whether you would handle it like that person said he/she did. Other speaker's stories may be so unlike your own and unlike the drunken life that you lived, that you have no choice but to "leave" what they say at that table; what that speaker offered had nothing to offer you.

Listening for similarities is what the listening is for, not for finding differences. No one in A.A. ought to criticize another member for anything he/she did or said. It isn't your business. Your business is none of their business--except to listen and learn. If your business is anybody's business, it is the business of your sponsor, and you should find a sponsor right away, even if you "fire" him/her after one meeting. I learn so much from theists that I'm grateful they are at the tables; I just don't "take" their god perspective; I leave it at the tables.

If, as an atheist who is telling his/her story at the A.A. meetings you find resistance, ask yourself if perhaps it is because you didn't have the sense not to criticize the "god" part of their program. You don't want them to criticize your atheism; don't denounce their theism and your resistance to it. I actually think many of the people I attend meetings with learn from the things I have to say. I know they thank me for speaking, and many are my friends.

My own sponsor is not an atheist. He doesn't have to be. He is a "free thinker" who accepts that whatever a person chooses for himself is best for that person. But on the book bag he has, which is filled with his A.A. approved literature, he has a sign that says, "In case of emergency, please contact God." But one of my previous sponsers was very religious; yet he accepted my atheism and worked with me anyway.

The only way you might not make it in A.A. as an atheist is if you are "reductive." Reductivism is a way of thinking that is accepted by many naturalists, most of whom are atheists. Reductivism says that we have no soul or spirit as something that can speak to us, that we can use as a sounding board within our consciousness, and that "seems" to have a life of its own.

Well, actually the reductivist admits that that is exactly the problem: the soul "seems" to exist, we can feel it and experience it, but it isn't real, they say. It's just a "twitch" in our emotional center that is caused by chemicals and electricity in the brain, and in the body. It "seems" to have a life of its own, but reductivists won't admit it is anything more than a "twitch," because to admit that it is more than a twitch is, in their estimation, the same as admitting that it is transcendental, in other words, that it supernaturally manifests itself.

There are all sorts of naturalists. I'm a metaphysical naturalist, which means I don't believe anything is supernatural. That is what makes me an atheist. But some naturalists believe in some supernatural things. Some even believe gods exists; they just don't believe in the gods. And some naturalists believe in god. It's confusing even for we who call ourselves naturalists. The bottom line is, you can be an atheist and still believe the soul is a wonderful expression of your consciousness, and that it is something you can use in that "spiritual" quest that all A.A.er must seek, myself included. I love the spiritual quest, but when I die, my spirit dies with me.

Admitting the soul exists as a thing that tells us about ourselves, that tells us when we hurt or when we are ecstatically happy, is not the same as admitting it is transcendental, eternal, everlasting. It doesn't mean that at all.

I believe there is a power greater than myself, because obviously it made me and I did not make it. Thomas Jefferson, who believed in God, still believed that what held the universe together and made it work was not the direct hand of God, but "the laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Those Renaissance men used to capitalize all the words that had importance in a sentence, and so Jefferson capitalized Nature to make it equal with God.

Jefferson didn't know what God was anymore than anyone else does, although he and his Deist friends who founded America thought God was supernatural. Still, not knowing exactly what God was but believing He existed, they were naturalists--because they believed that God, whatever He was, created Nature and then let Nature take over. God sits back and watches, and keeps his hands off, never interfering in the affairs of Man, because He gave man Reason for the very purpose of controlling his own affairs.

So for an atheist "god" can be those laws of nature which are obviously there, like gravity. Isn't gravity a power greater than you are? If you want to escape gravity, you have to learn how. You can't just jump in the air and go floating into space.

An atheist author wrote that it is impossible to hear a man's voice over the distance of 240,000 miles; and yet, she wrote, we heard the astronauts speaking to us from the moon. We learned to command nature, but we cannot change nature; we created radio waves and receivers, but it's still just as impossible to hear a man's voice over 240,000 miles. That is a power greater than any man can overcome.

And so it our Reason we must use to navigate the tricky twists and curves of being atheist in a god-based group. But there are very good reasons for navigating those waters.

1) You receive the "Promises," which are officially described, in part, as:

"a new freedom and a new happiness;" a loss of regret over things we may have done or said in the past; that "we will comprehend the word serenity and we will know peace"; that "that feeling of uselessness and self-pity will disappear"; that "our whole attitude and outlook on life will change" for the better; and "we will intuitively know how to handle things which used to baffle us. [These promises] are being fulfilled among us--sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly. They will always materialize if we work for them."

I added the emphasis at the end of that because it must be understood that these things don't come just by showing up at A.A. meetings and listening and talking. You have to work for them, you have to go "into action," which is name of a chapter in the Book. That is why it is important to find someone you can work with on a one-to-one basis. That person is who you can call your sponsor, even if you find another sponsor next week.

Don't let the "god" part of A.A. deter you from using the program selfishly. "The principles we have set down are guides to progress." [italics added]

"We are not saints. Do not be discouraged.
Half measures availed us nothing. Without help it is too much for us.

"But there exists among us a a fellowship, a friendliness, and an understanding which is indescribably wonderful. We are people who would not normally mix. We are average Americans.

"The tremendous fact for every one of us [in A.A.] is that we have discovered a common solution. We have a way out on which we can absolutely agree, and upon which we can join in brotherly and harmonious action. This is the great news this book carries to those who suffer from alcoholism."

Those paragraphs were mixed and matched from different pages and chapters of the Big Book. But that is how each of us must learn to do it. People at meetings who quote the books flip back and forth between pages and books all the time, taking what they need and leaving the rest.

"If you have decided you want what we have and are willing to go to any length to get it, then you are ready to take certain steps"; and one of these steps is putting up with a program based on god while you look for your answers that are devoid of god.

In the meantime you will have that fellowship, and those promises will come true if you work for them.

And oh yes, about 1) listed above. Where are the rest of the reasons for navigating the god-waters of A.A.? Well first, ask if all those reasons listed under 1) are not a good start. But then ask yourself if you "want what we have and are willing to go to any length to get it." Any length, that is, that does not deny your own beliefs. No person who believes the "Rapture" is coming next year will try to convert a Unitarian; and no Babtist will try to convert a Coptic. No one of any religious faith asks another person of another faith to deny his or her own religious beliefs.

If you are willing, that is the best reason for navigating the waters. Don't be afraid of the theists and their talk of god, because when you open your mouth and speak of how you are finding this-way and that-way of attaining those "principles" which are really only "guides," and you show that you are finding them through something someone said and through something, anything, that you found in the books, then you, and they, will know that the program they put so much faith into even works for we atheists.

For Part II Click Here more

For some outside perspectives, read the Comments on the link below.

http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/04/10/discussion-atheists-in-alcoholics-anonymous.htm

Publishing Note Re: Reader Comments
I have made the attempt several times to allow the posting of reader comments to this blog. I have followed all the directions set by Google (yes, I've read the directions, several times,) but as of yet it isn't working. If you wish to comment, please email them to the address below. If you know how I can fix this, please email. Thank you.

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the sm of the

Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism tm, the educational arm of the Assemblage.

© 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

Guest Author Rev. Anthony "sntjohnny" Horvath

Guest Author Responds in His Blog to This Blog

Response to Curtis Clark on Naturalism- A Breath of Fresh Air

September 18, 2008 – 11:29 am by sntjohnny. Filed under Blog, General.

Recently an atheist stumbled upon my site and in the course of corresponding with him I have discovered that our different points of view aside, he is a gentleman that I can have a conversation with. His site is called The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism and he recently put up a post responding to a post on my own blog on the distinction between ‘natural’ revelation and ’special’ revelation. Normally I try to direct correspondents to my discussion forum but in this case, an atheist who has actually announced that I am a rational thinker, I must make an exception!

The reader has all the information in the links above to follow this exchange, if they like.
In my blog entry I indicated that many atheists won’t be convinced by anything less than their own ‘Road to Damascus’ experience. Mr. Clark responds:

"I should say not. Atheists don’t believe such revelations are possible, because the cause of them does not exist. Any person who could possibly be looking for a 'revealed' revelation would be a fence-sitting agnostic. By definition, an atheist knows there is no god, in the sense that all the resolutions of logic one has in one’s mind is what he “knows.” This is sometimes called “justified true belief,” as opposed to “unjustified.” The justification comes from the soundness of the argument.

"Theists 'know' God exists. Atheists 'know' he does not. Each of them has found the soundness, the justification, within his own logic that to doubt it would be to doubt his own mind. To go looking for a revelation implies that one knows nothing either way, and perhaps has no beliefs one way or the other."

I think Mr. Clark is here engaged in an unnecessary discussion on what constitutes an ‘atheist.’ As he most certainly knows, there are different ‘kinds’ of atheists, including what we construe in technical terms as ‘weak’ and ’strong’ atheists. I am aware that ’strong’ atheists often think of ‘weak’ atheists as actually being agnostics. Other atheists are ‘negative’ atheists, asserting that they don’t have a belief that there isn’t a God, but rather simply a lack of belief. My problem as an apologist is that these issues are largely an internal matter among atheists but each atheist insists on telling me what atheism absolutely is! It is hard to see how this internicene conflict will end: unlike Christianity which in theory at least has a static set of documents to limit how the term can be stretched, ‘atheism’ reduces, ultimately, to each individual atheist’s perception of atheism.

Anyway, I recently had one instance that refutes the general claim. A certain atheism on my forum, when I asked if he agreed that revelation would be a useful tool for compensating for ignorance regarding a putative objective moral code, said, “You’re asking me whether if god came to visit me (like some amplified Jehovah’s Witness) and explained the whole thing, then would that change my opinion? Uh, yes.

Perhaps the hang up is my phrase ‘looking for.’ I freely admit that many atheists are not ‘looking for revelation’ which I think is actually the problem. Mr. Clark is resting his disbelief on the ’soundness of the argument’ but I maintain that a single contrary fact is enough to put an argument to bed. Quantum indeterminancy has undermined many of the deterministic arguments of the previous centuries, for example. This would require a long conversation with Mr. Clark to flesh out but let me just say that its difficult to imagine how God could possibly meet the burden of demonstration many atheists expect him to fulfill if they would immediately discount the evidence if it was actually provided.

I have now laid out a lot of assertions that would require several nights over several beers to defend but if this is already getting long.

Moving on:
"One thing I’m beginning to admire about sntjohnny is that he seems to have an understanding of naturalism that is better than that of many naturalists. But his understanding of naturalists themselves isn’t as discerning. No naturalist who is also atheist has any justified true belief in either kind of revelation. The naturalist who believes in 'natural' revelation is not an atheist. The person who believes in 'revealed' revelations is not a naturalist."

Well, obviously the naturalist wouldn’t see the natural order as revelation about God. This is not the language that I would use if my only audience were philosophical naturalists, but my audience is wider than that. The phrase ‘revelation’ can still be rehabilitated, though, because if one wants to get to the bottom of just what reality is all about, than they are going to have to rely on more than just introspection. They’ll have to open their eyes and let the universe around them ‘tell’ them about itself. You cannot deduce the law of gravity. For that you must drop an object and allow it to ‘reveal’ its speed as it rushes to the earth.

So, when we ‘open our eyes’ to let reality speak for itself, what conclusions do we draw? I maintain that we rely on the conclusions that others have drawn for most of the conclusions that we ourselves draw. In other words, most of what we think we know we only know because others have revealed it to us. Sifting through ‘revelation’ is not foreign to our experience. Now, what if the question at hand is whether or not there is more to physical reality? Here, I maintain that logical argumentation, one way or another, has limited value. Ideally, whatever is the ‘more’ would have to reveal itself to us to learn anything truly interesting.

Atheists may not be looking for evidence of revelation but my contention is that they ought to be, and that they ought to do so without prejudging the issue, because that would be circular reasoning.

It is really not a very controversial position. The most efficient way of finding out if I like coffee or not is for me to tell you (I do). It is no good presuming before the investigation that I can’t possibly like coffee, so revelation to the contrary must be summarily dismissed. Similarly, if the question is whether or not there are extraterrestial entities out there, then clearly our best chance of finding out is if they’ve made efforts to reveal their presense to us (or Sagan’s “Contact” and the SETI project are ridiculous). They understand that the only good way to find out is in fact to go looking for revelation. If they believed already, on argument alone, that extraterrestial entities didn’t exist, and then set up SETI, any data they received would be discounted because of their prior conclusion. Of course, if SETI knew that there were not extraterrestial entities one supposes they wouldn’t even bother looking.

Those examples are not that much different than the question of God. The differences would be where and how we’d look for the revelation, just as one looks for extraterrestial revelation differently than one looks for revelation about one’s drinking preferences. As long as one has a plausible reason for looking in the first place then it is perfectly reasonable to ‘look.’ The presence of a billion and a half people who believe that God actually came to earth at one time is certainly a plausible reason to examine the claim. Decide that the claim is false, if you like, but I insist that concluding it is false because you already know such things can’t happen because you already know there isn’t a God is just not reasonable.

Thank you, Rev. Anthony Horvath, "sntjohnny," for the "back-and-forth" nature of our discussion. This is what human discussion is supposed to be. You, and I, and our readers, know that there are those out there in the world who could not have a dialectic.

sntjohnny and I have agreed to keep this discussion going until we reach what each of us considers a good ending. It may happen every 10 days to two week, more or less, give or take, as we see fit. I will always be certain to link the threads together for you, as he did at the top of his piece.

Check out http://sntjohnny.com/front/ and discover the wonderful world of rational Christianity. Now THAT is a "breath of fresh air." CEC

Publishing Note Re: Reader Comments
I have made the attempt several times to allow the posting of reader comments to this blog. I have followed all the directions set by Google (yes, I've read the directions, several times,) but as of yet it isn't working. If you wish to comment, please email them to the address below. If you know how I can fix this, please email the Academy Blogger.
Thank you.

Please use the Email Link at the top of the Sidebar, (after I get THAT working--I can't believe I got that beautiful clock at the top of the sidebar working!)

or send comments to:

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

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. © 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

"sntjohnny" is a Rational Christian; Taxing for Green; Web Deceits

"sntjohnny" is a Rational Christian
With Whom I Can Have Dialogue

Anthony Horvath is the Executive Director of Athanatos Christian Ministries. Horvath, who calls himself sntjohnny though his name isn't John, calls his website St.Johnny.com, perhaps to differentiate himself: "Will the real St. John please stand up?"

"[B]y the very definition of God according to Christian theists, there is a great deal that could only be known if God told us." Horvath was describing "special revelation."

"Special" is contrasted with "natural revelation" whereby "natural revelation" means arguments for the existence of God, Horvath says. "Simply put, ‘natural’ revelation, or ‘natural theology,’ is what one can learn about God running exclusively on your own steam without any assistance from God. Aristotle’s Prime Mover arguments and Aquinas’s ‘Five Ways’ are such efforts." http://sntjohnny.com/front/natural-versus-revealed-religion-how-atheists-drop-the-ball/349.html

"One of the confusions here is the treatment of the Bible as revelation. It certainly is revelation. However, when it concerns God, it is, strictly speaking, revelation about revelation. So, the ’special revelation’ would be what happened to Paul on the road to Damascus. He then reveals what was revealed to him. In other words, the accounts of this incident are Paul’s revelation. Also, all that we know about Jesus is revealed to us through his disciples. [italics added]

"Atheists at this point are probably scratching their heads because from their perspective I will not have made the situation any better. What many of them are specifically looking for is their own ‘Road to Damascus’ experience."

I should say not. Atheists don't believe such revelations are possible, because the cause of them does not exist. Any person who could possibly be looking for a "revealed" revelation would be a fence-sitting agnostic. By definition, an atheist knows there is no god, in the sense that all the resolutions of logic one has in one's mind is what he "knows." This is sometimes called "justified true belief," as opposed to "unjustified." The justification comes from the soundness of the argument.

Theists "know" God exists. Atheists "know" he does not. Each of them has found the soundness, the justification, within his own logic that to doubt it would be to doubt his own mind. To go looking for a revelation implies that one knows nothing either way, and perhaps has no beliefs one way or the other.

Horvath begins his blog asserting "that atheists fail to distinguish between ‘natural revelation’ and ’special revelation’ but they are not entirely to blame. Arguments for the existence of God tend to be in the realm of ‘natural’ theology."

Yes, they do "tend to be considered theology," and therein lies the differences between theists and atheists. One thing I'm beginning to admire about sntjohnny is that he seems to have an understanding of naturalism that is better than that of many naturalists. But his understanding of naturalists themselves isn't as discerning. No naturalist who is also atheist has any justified true belief in either kind of revelation. The naturalist who believes in "natural" revelation is not an atheist. The person who believes in "revealed" revelations is not a naturalist.

Horvath is familiar with my very public differences with Austin Cline, the Deity of Atheism over at About.com. [See the Academy Blogger http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/2008/09/threaded-with-austin-cline-saturday.html ]

I have thus publicly disagreed with Cline about the definition of atheism. I maintain that not only do atheists justifiably believe there are no gods, but also that atheists don't have the faith required to see within the "naturally revealed" world the existence of any god. Cline says an atheist merely has no belief in god, and may consider it to be true that gods exist, and have faith in other forms of supernaturalism!

Far from being skeptical, the atheist who believes there are no gods finds no reason to be skeptical since he/she finds no reason to argue with him/herself about whether he/she is correct in his/her belief.

On the other hand, the believer is the skeptic and the more devout the belief the more skeptical he/she is. That is because in order to believe in the "revealed revelations" of the Bible, the Christian must "suspend his disbelief" http://www.mediacollege.com/glossary/s/suspension-of-disbelief.html , overcoming it with reason. It was the theologian Boethius, after all, who told Christians, "Insofar as is possible, join faith to reason."

It is not in my constitution to suspend my reason only to replace it with faith, which must then be rationalized by overcoming my disbelief with sound justifications that overcome them. The theist who cannot find the sound justification to overcome his/her disbelief is a Christian with a crisis.

sntjohnny does a credible and understandable job of overcoming disbelief--for the agnostic, or the Christian with a crisis of belief. I do not believe, and he states unequivocally that he also does not believe, anything less than a "revealed" revelation would be enough to convince an atheist.

If he is right, and I agree that he is, Cline's definition of "atheist" has been knocked out of the ballpark.

I have provided my readers with a link to Horvath,aka stjohnny, in the sidebar under the heading "Interesting Reading." Horvath is a very rational Christian who comprehends that preaching to an atheist doesn't work, even if he thinks we are all waiting for our own personal revelation from a god. What he does understand is that in reason, there can be dialogue between theists and atheists, which is the only way for the two camps to talk, aside from just leaving each other alone altogether.

Are You That Certain of Yourself
That You Can Tax the Rest of Us for Your Beliefs?
"Cool Look at the Future, by Richard Rahn. How much in additional taxes are you willing to pay now in order to ensure that the Earth would not be 3 degrees warmer 100 years from now (assuming the science is even possible) - $100 or $1,000 or $10,000 or more? Should the government prevent us from selling some of our body parts to allow others to live or have better lives? The above questions and many others were the subject of learned discussion at the 60th anniversary meeting of the Mont Pelerin Society (MPS) that just concluded here in Tokyo." Cato Today http://www.cato.org/recent_opeds.php

Internet Lies and Deceits
"I was intrigued to discover recently that I am a secret services mouthpiece designed to undermine the left by publishing neo-conservative views and apologies for racism. You'll not be surprised to learn that these ludicrous allegations were made on the internet. The web has become a clearing house for all sorts of nonsense ideas.

"Many of the most enthusiastic pioneers of the internet have now become seriously worried about its capacity to promulgate lies and distortions. Larry Sanger, one of the co-founders of Wikipedia, became so disillusioned that he started Citizendium as an attempt to bring more quality control to online, collaborative encyclopaedias. Just last week, the creator of the internet, Tim Berners-Lee, also said that we need to find ways to control the spread of falsehoods on the web."I share their concerns, but I wonder if blaming the web is just shooting the messenger for radically upping his productivity."

Julian Baggini http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/features/display.var.2446993.0.Can_we_untangle_this_web_of_deceit.php

Mr. Baggini also has a link provided by the Academy Blogger under the heading "Interesting Reading."

Publishing Note Re: Reader Comments
I have made the attempt several times to allow the posting of reader comments to this blog. I have followed all the directions set by Google (yes, I've read the directions, several times,) but as of yet it isn't working. If you wish to comment, please email them to the address below. If you know how I can fix this, please email the Academy Blogger. Please use the Email Link at the top of the Sidebar (when I get that fixed!)

or send comments to:

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

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

Atheism is Protected by Law; Austin Cline has Adversaries

Atheism Is Protected As a Religion, says Court

For the purposes of protection under the First Amendment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (May 13, 1997), decided the Orange County N.Y. Department of Probation could not force Robert Warner, an atheist, to attend religion-based alcoholic treatment programs against the dictates of his own beliefs.

"The district court agreed with Mr. Warner's argument that these meetings involved a substantial religious element. Participants were told to "believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us," and that they must "turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understand him." In addition, the "Step" program ordered those participating to "Admit to God ... the exact nature of our wrongs," be "entirely ready to have God remove all these defects ... (and) ask Him to remove our shortcomings," and to seek "through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God, as we (understand) Him. The meetings were also punctuated with frequent prayers of a Christian nature."

Four months into the program Mr. Warner complained that, as an Atheist, he found the meetings objectionable due to their religious nature. It was then that his probation officer determined that Warner lacked sufficient commitment to the idea of learning the techniques of remaining sober, even though he apparently had not been found in violation of his probation orders to remain sober!

"Attorneys for Mr. Warner relied on a number of legal precedents, including:" [refer to link] http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/alanon1.htm

Atheist Groups in Prison
But two years earlier,in the case of Kaufman v. McCaughtry, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals declared atheism a religion for purposes of protection under the Establishment Clause. The court said prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.

"James Kaufman filed suit while incarcerated at the Waupun Correctional Institution after submitting an official document titled "Request for New Religious Practices." He asked permission to form an inmate group "to stimulate and promote Freedom of Thought, and inquiry concerning religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals and practices, (and to) educate and provide information concerning religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and practices." http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/court36.htm

Court Made Good and Bad Decisions, says Atheist Blogger
An atheist blogger saw a good side and a bad side to this ruling. "What the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals got right:" said Matt Dillahunty, was that "atheism is a 'religion' for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture."

What court got wrong, Dillahunty said, is that "Atheism is, among other things, a school of thought that takes a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics."

The Court in this case recognized that unless the prison system had prevented all gatherings of religion, preventing a group of atheists to gather was a violation of the Establishment Clause.
"Tthey didn't declare that atheism was a religion, they declared that atheism was afforded equal protection with religions under the Establishment Clause." [italics added]

How did the court come to this conclusion? The Supreme Court and Circuit Courts use the "Lemon" test, Lemon v. Kurtzman, a three-pronged test concerning the secular nature of government laws and regulations. http://www.atheist-community.org/library/articles/read.php?id=742

Another Court, Another Time
In Wallace v. Jaffree, another court said: "At one time it was thought that this right [referring to the right to choose one’s own creed] merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all."

Historical Precedence and Jefferson
This has clear historical relevance in the way the framers of the Constitution (and it's backers) thought of the secular nature of government and the need to keep it out of the way of the sovereignty of the individual. Thomas Jefferson's proudest achievement was not the Declaration of Independence. It was the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom in which his principle of the "wall of separation between church and state" first took lawful form. Jefferson said that the purpose of the separation was that, "within the mantle of [the law's] protection, [were] the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." What better example of an "infidel" than an atheist?

Jefferson also said some other things concerning religion which I wish modern Americans would take heed of:

1. "I inquire after no man's [religion,] and trouble none with mine."
2. "I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others."
3. "I have considered [religion] as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle."

Austin Cline Has Adversaries?

My, my! Since my post on the threaded conversation between myself and Austin Cline last week http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/2008/09/threaded-with-austin-cline-saturday.html , I've discovered that I'm not the only one to have a beef with the guy.

Read these:

"Shame On Austin Cline"; http://sandefur.typepad.com/freespace/2005/05/shame_on_austin.html

"Response to Austin Cline";http://mikeduran.com/?p=972

"An attack on [C.S.] Lewis from Austin Cline"; [A response by the author of "C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason,"]
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2005/10/attack-on-lewis-from-austin-cline.html

This is the first paragraph of a longer piece: "While I have glimpsed in a few places atheistic reactions to my assertion that the church itself is producing atheists, I had yet to see any real formal comment on it until today, when a member of my forum pointed me to Austin Cline’s entry on it located here. It so happens that I know of Mr. Cline and have had a little interaction, but for the record I don’t believe he understands that ‘Anthony Horvath’ is also ’sntjohnny.’ That interaction has a little in common with his entry here. In word, I think he is again being quite presumptuous, and I’m going to take this opportunity to respond even though he’ll never likely see it." http://sntjohnny.com/front/austin-cline-reacts-to-the-church-producing-atheists/64.html

See this exchange of comments between Cline and the original blogger to whom he is responding, where Cline arrogantly refers to "a housewife and good little kiddies at home.” http://de-conversion.com/2007/04/06/is-the-rise-of-atheism-and-feminism-destroying-the-traditional-family/

"Austin Cline of atheism.about.com, argues that fundamentalist atheism does not exist, because it cannot exist on the grounds that atheism has no fundamental doctrines, and that fundamentalism is not a personality type." http://www.powerset.com/explore/semhtml/Fundamentalism?query=others+include+Austin+Cline But this "fundamentalism" was exactly what I was talking about when I (CEC) told him atheism, being not only about either a lack of belief in a god, or a belief in no god (this second of which he disputed,) was about also about "faith" vs. "reason." That is fundamental.

Faith vs. reason is the fundamental difference between a person who believes no god exists, and people who believe gods do exist. When you throw in to the mix the agnostic who has a lack of belief yet does not give up supernaturalism such as tea leaf readings or ghost hunting, there is a conflict of concepts, which Cline denied in our thread, even going so far as to say atheism as a belief that nothing supernatural exists is "limiting" to the idea of atheism. He wants to be "all inclusive" because of his culturally popular position as a very public blogger for a major enterprise.

"Austin Cline, in a recent article, has taken issue with one of my posts on atheism. Cline has “argued” that I unfairly divide all atheists into two “nice, neat groups”." [His own organization, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, is arguing with him. Funny how my original argument with him was about how Cline himself "unfairly" divided atheists into "strong" and "weak" atheists--which I took umberage with. (CEC)] http://ffrf.org/

Cline does get some support: "I gotta hand it to Austin Cline of atheism.about.com. He is a class act." http://killtheafterlife.blogspot.com/2007/04/austin-cline-gives-his-support.html

Dilbert.Blog calls Cline the "Poster Child for Cognitive Dissonance." http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/08/poster-child-fo.html

It would seem Cline likes to argue with other people, http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/sep96-r2.html (as he did with me.)

I'm certain there must be many more similar posts, since "Cline" can be found on 192,000 hits, and I'm not going to search them all.

Publishing Note:
I have made the attempt several times to allow the posting of reader comments to this blog. I have followed all the directions set by Google (yes, I've read the directions, several times,) but as of yet it isn't working. If you wish to comment, please email them to the address below. Thank you.

Please send all comments to

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

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

Threaded with Austin Cline--Pop Culture vs. Ontology; and Saturday Quotes

A Threaded Conversation with the Deity of Atheism, Austin Cline

I am publishing this thread because Mr. Cline has either refused, or merely neglected, to publish the last comment I made to him [9.13.08; see below] in which I was able to refute his criticism of me as "fail[ing] to support your arguments," and of having written on the "basis of appalling misrepresentations." He said I was "long on unsupported claims, but short on credible arguments and facts."

If Mr. Cline refuses to admit my credibility as it comes to me from other sources better known and respected than he is, then I am forced to publish it myself.

As Mr. Cline himself alludes to, he is a writer of pop culture and must satisfy his readers and his employer. I must do neither, and if my readers find my credibility strained, they have only to refuse to read my blog.

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, psychic powers, and a host of other mystical, supernatural, and paranormal things. Being an atheist doesn't mean being a skeptic, and vice-versa. However, paranormal claims aren't very different from religious ones and a relevant atheism is one based upon a consistently and broadly applied skepticism, not one focused solely on 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 can tell you it’s about “faith” versus “reason.” Atheists do not have faith, and rely on reason. An atheist who has supernatural beliefs like astrology is a contradiction in terms. My blog today http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/2008/09/non-reductive-monism.html is about “reductive monism” vs. “non-reductive” monism, and why “reductive monism” cannot win arguments with theists.

"If you go back in your archives beginning August 7, thread #41223 re: “strong” atheism vs. “weak” atheism, you will see the silly arguments made by atheists against my black-and-white statement that gods don’t exist. One person asked me if, since I didn’t believe gods exist, did I believe Alexander the Great had been real, 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. That’s the definition.

"'As an atheist blogger, I can tell you it’s about “faith” versus “reason.'”

"You’re mistaken. There is nothing about atheism that prevents a person from having “faith” or believing in any manner of nonsense. Being an atheist doesn’t mean a person is necessarily rational, reasonable, intelligent, moral, civil, or anything else.

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

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

"It’s true that most atheist in the West today don’t believe in the supernatural and don’t have “faith” in things in a manner analogous to how theists have “faith” in 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 other places and at all other times are like that.

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

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

"'If you go back in your archives beginning August 7, thread #41223 re: “strong” atheism vs. “weak” atheism

"First, you’re talking about a forum thread.
"Second, I am quite familiar with that forum thread and I noticed that you fail to support your arguments. I’ve linked to that thread above so others can see. You have commented on things I have written here, but only on the basis of appalling misrepresentations. You are long on unsupported claims, but short on credible arguments and facts." [italics added by me, Clark, because they become relevant below.]

Me: 9/12/08
"I wrote a long reply, using “facts” garnered from Dr. Quentin Smith, Tom Clark, and Tibor Machan. I’ve met Smith, argued with Clark, and was informed by Machan about Clark’s reductionism, which led me to the subject of monism, which you did not address.
Then when I sent it, I was told my email address was incorrect, go back. In going back, 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 skeptics to the naturalist position, rather than making us their skeptics, were acceptable to you.
If it didn’t get through, please fix your system so that in the future, such losses 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, it’s irrelevant. The subject of “consulting a dictionary” is usually quite sufficient. [italics added]

"If it didn’t get through, please fix your system so that in the future, such losses do not occur.'
"I’m not responsible for the software on this site any more than you are responsible for the blogging software you use."

Me: 9.13.08 [Cline has so far neglected to publish this last comment in his own blog.]

"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 'basis of appalling misrepresentations [ ] long on unsupported claims, but short on credible arguments and facts,' did you notice that in each of my blogs I use other, more accomplished thinkers than myself and I attribute them all?

"No, of course not. You didn't bother looking. Are all my authorities incorrect, or are 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, The Stanford 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 but yourself.

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

"And Dr. Quentin Smith, whom I've met, wrote: "Naturalist philosophers need to rethink their goals. In part this involves clearly distinguishing between philosophical goals and cultural consequences of the attainment or pursuit of these goals.

"'One of the four goals of informed naturalists,' Smith writes, is to, 'Reclassify the philosophy of religion as a sub field of naturalism, viz. skepticism about naturalism, so that the position in the various fields of philosophy formerly occupied by 'the philosophy of religion' is replaced by the field 'the philosophy of naturalism.'

"'The fourth goal is to justifiably reformulate, and answer, the two basic ontological 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 mainstream secularization it possessed before the post-1967 breakdown in the field of philosophy.' http://www.philoonline.org/library/smith_4_2.htm

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

"It would seem that in 'distinguishing between philosophical goals and cultural consequences,' you are the cultural expert, whereas I focus on the philosophy, backed by world renowned experts. [I should have stated "even if they back my argument 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 please lets keep this civil between us:

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

"I think you cannot now claim I misrepresent all the people I attribute in my blog; nor can you say I am short on credibility, unless you wish to claim all of my 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 my words. 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 destroy my comment.

"You stick with your 'culture.' I'll stick with my ontology, metaphysics, and epistemic principles. You continue to write as the Deity of atheist culture your fans take you to be; I will continue to write like the expert I someday hope to be credibly accepted as.

"As I said in one of those older threads, this is why I hate getting into threads. I did not attack you personally in my first comment, only commenting on what you said.

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

"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, as he suggested I do:

"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 a belief in a personal God. Atheism in this sense means "not theistic." [italics added, to prove that this particular dictionary proves Mr. Cline to be incorrect, not me.]
"The former meaning of the term is a literal rendering. The latter meaning is a less 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 merely have an absence of belief in gods can still find themselves involved in all sorts of supernatural enterprises, like astrology, hand reading, tea reading, ghost hunting, etc. As the dictionary above states, these people are not atheist; they are "not-theist." You use a "less rigorous" definition that is "widely current"; but "widely current" does not mean "correct." It means "culturally popular," and you have already identified your definition as "cultural."

Someone 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, otherwise there is not an iota of distinction in the definitions:

"[M]an's ethical values, compulsions, activities, and restraints can be justified by non-reductive monism, http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/2008/09/non-reductive-monism.html without recourse to supernatural sanctions, and his highest good pursued and attained under natural conditions, without expectation of a supernatural destiny."(amended from B.A.G.Fuller http://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!

Quotes for Saturday

He mobilized the English language and sent it into battle. Edward R. Murrow; "I Can Hear It Now"; (said of Churchill)

"Every day you may make progress. Every step may be fruitful. Yet there will stretch out before you an ever-lengthening, ever-ascending, ever-improving path. You know you will never get to the end of the journey. But this, far from discouraging, only adds to the joy and glory of the climb." Sir Winston Churchill, from the essay 'Painting as a Pastime', published at the end of Thoughts and Adventures.

When they start the game, they don't yell, "Work ball." They say, "Play ball." Willie Stargell

"Live Free Or Die; Death Is Not The Worst of Evils." General Stark sent this toast to be read at the reunion he was too ill to attend; "Live Free or Die" became the New Hampshire State Motto in 1945 General John Stark, a toast for the 32nd anniversary reunion of the 1777 Battle of Bennington in Vermont, July 31, 1809

Please send all comments to

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the sm of the

Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism tm, the educational arm of the Assemblage.

This publication © 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®