Welcome to the forums, again. RRS has been having some problems with the server lately, so that is most likely why your account was deleted. 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/general_conversation_introductions_and_humor/11597

Hello PJ,

Last time I was here, the mods slapped a 'theist' label on me.  I'd like to be free of such blatant labeling; I feel like a Jew wearing the star of David in Nazi Europe.

Defining 'postmodern' is not something that I dare to try.  As for neo-atheism, the word 'neo' means 'new' and hence i am saying 'new atheism'. New atheism is the brand of (nonsense) atheism propagated by Dawkins and the like.

If you insist...

So, you either subscribe to something you don't understand or can't explain?

Atheism is a negative position primarily, so Dawkins, being an evolutionary biologist, is in a position to take on positive theistic claims about special creation, etc. You can address the logic and substance of any positive claim, and if all claims for deities fail, the rational position is at least tentative atheism. People have been shooting holes in theistic arguments for centuries, though often in competing religions or as a rhetorical challenge to one's own faith, but few had the privilege to voice actual apostasy against their own religion, so we have no way to assess a true history of disbelief. What is it you think is new about "new" atheism?

I'm sorry you feel that way.  If you really feel as if you don't deserve the tag, feel free to PM a mod explaining why.  

  Sorry! 

So, you either subscribe to something you don't understand or can't explain?

The latter.  It's not uncommon for philosophers to sway from the burden of defining postmodernism because it is complex, arcane and debated.

Atheism is a negative position primarily,

Ahh, yes, the old ~B:G vs B:~G  difference.  I certainly agree there is a difference but whether it is atheism rather than just non-theism is debatable.

 so Dawkins, being an evolutionary biologist, is in a position to take on positive theistic claims about special creation, etc.

This is not clear.

You can address the logic and substance of any positive claim, and if all claims for deities fail, the rational position is at least tentative atheism.

address the 'substance'? 

People have been shooting holes in theistic arguments for centuries,

likewise for atheology. 

  What is it you think is new about "new" atheism?

Is the term 'new atheism' new to you? What I think of new atheism is this: it is an arrogant outlook that does not appreciate the arguments in its disfavor.

Undoubtably, given that it is a patently ridiculous philosophical school that has contributed no substance, rhyme nor reason with any propositional coherency whatsoever, unlike the strong arm of analytical philosophy

 un·doubted·ly.  And, opinions vary.

I think we were all fully aware of that and the comment merely pertained to the vapid and useless nature of the term

Oh.  My apologies are offered to you and the other people in this forum. 

You are trying to make a distinction without providing sufficient reason as to why the atheism of Dawkins or anyone else is categorically different from any other atheist.

 It is not all that different in terms of the belief logic involved with atheism, but in terms of demeanor of the atheist and their perception of theism. 

 I hope this is clear enough for you.

 Although, you did state you were a "postmodernist theist" and whilst this makes absolutely no sense beyond the syntax, it nonetheless gave the moderators sufficient reason to tag you. 

Perhaps, but that does not address my request not to be tagged.

<-------  There's an agnostic Diest badge, that may be more apporiate.

Ah, I see. Your complaint pertains to their overt hostility towards theism in general? So, presumably, when you mean Dawkins and his ilk you refer also to Harris?

To some extent, I agree. The principal reason I disliked the God Delusion was because so much time was wasted talking about irrelevant topics. An entire section seemed to pertain to Dawkin's irritance over not recieving the Templeton Prize (a dubious honor I would not wish to recieve). The whole book should have been devoted to the existence of God, not two chapters. The bulk of it, whilst some was interesting, seemed wholly irrelevant. The result was that each topic, which deserved and has been written into whole books in their own merit (such as the evolutionary advantage of religion) was overly simplified and overly summarized, to the extent that there was not a great deal of content in each. 

To some degree, I sympathize with Dawkins being that we live in a time where marked religious fundamentalism is on the rise. However, Harris, a trained philosopher, spells out the case much more clearly, and in my opinion, much better, than Dawkins did.  

That is not a charge that any postmodernist can ever lay on anyone else. The Pot is indeed a handsome shade of black.

His point was perfectly clear. Certain religions make direct empirical claims pertaining to certain empirical phenomenon, that can be investigated, hence falsified or confirmed, by a proper scientific methodology. And they do make such specific claims, particularly about natural history (ie Biblical creation), that have been explicity falsified by this, and so their authority can be repudiated. As an evolutionary biologist, Dawkins is aware of much of the Origin claims made by certain religions, and knows how to demonstrate them false.  

Hello,

I did not intend to 'charge' anything, this is a bit too much of an aggressive word for my intent.  Rather, I wished to note that his writings were unclear and hence leave him to assume why I did not respond to it. 

Thanks for clarifying his post.

I did not say it was arrogant to be a non-theist, Watcher. But, you're welcome to quote me on such matters.

Perhaps this is a good time to tell you, Watcher, that I am not looking to engage in any debate with you at the moment.  I already have an upcoming formal debate in a few weeks in regards to a relevant issue. Perhaps, when I am done with my formal debate, you and I or, too, Mr. Analytical Philosophy   can butt heads in a formal debate.

I believe that I already defined new atheism, Watcher. I might also add, that you will notice that my own commentary is difficult to assess for my stands on certain issues.  I take much from Foucault and try to flee from identity.

Dance away.  What a fucktard.

"I believe", "I never said that", etc., etc.

Perhaps this is a good time to tell you, MyKey, that it is obvious you like making statements and not backing them up.  Actually you run from backing them up, or try to confuse what you originally meant with your statements.

Is this how you continue to hold onto beliefs in your head?  By avoiding specific points?

Good luck on your "formal debate".

Is this the compassionate RRSer civilty that I hear so  much about? 

Kind of like this one?  I made no statements in this thread that I need to 'back up'. 

I disagree, Watcher. You seem to just have a hard time interpreting my posts and somehow I am culpable for the avalanche of your inadequacies. 

Maybe.

LOL. I was wondering which of the Francophony twits that you adhered to. Come to think of it now, have the French ever produced a philosopher since

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting Descartes ideas are worth consideration, I reject more or less all of them. Nonetheless at least he put forth genuine, propositionally coherent ideas. None of the postmodernist vapid nonsense-spewers, by definition, have the capacity to express propositionally coherent ideas. If they did, they wouldn't be called postmodernists.

Foucault had some capacity to express at least more than correct syntax, unlike Irigaray, Derrida, Lyotard or Guattari. That does not excuse the vapidity of Continental philosophy in general.

A Formal debate? Due respect, how? Formal debates entail by definition that propositions be coherently defined such that they may be acted upon as resolutions. No man has ever had a propositionally coherent way to express any of the vacuous writings of postmodernists. I've had formal debates about real philosophical issues, such as Token-Type Identity and Anomolous Monism, or Bundle-theory Ontology versus Bare-order substance, or Wittgenstein's logical atomism. These formal debates entail real, and propositionally coherent, hence sane ideas. I cannot say the same for the syntactically correct nonsense that congregates under the label of Continental philosophy.

And your deliberately vague and vacuous answers and refusal to speak in a propositionally coherent fashion merely affirm what I am saying about the vacuous emptiness of postmodernism and its thorough lack of contributing real ideas to philosophical discourse. That being the case, what proposition can you bring that can possibly be acted upon in the manner of formal debate? 

    Mykey,

understanding each other (and so ourselves) is essential progress. What do you mean by God ?

A God definition please .... seriously friend .... I'm slow .... but I care .... hey my god is rocking cool, tell me about yours .... btw I'm an "old school" atheist ...  

 Arguments need not to be structured with material implications or indictive statements. But, I'm sure you already knew that. That's what impresses me about you, your attention to detail.

 Do a Google search on the 'father of modern philosophy' and see what you find, eh?

 A note: Foucault never identified himself as a post-structuralist. 

 Oh, okay.  Well, thanks for setting the record straight.

"[C]annot" is a modal operator referring to impossibilty. Do me a favor: quote me on this alleged claim of mine, hm?

 It is not necessary that I do. My own beliefs or positions need not to be interactive in a debate regarding the resolution. There is what I believe and what I argue--a difference, no?

Confidence. And, I don't know it or guess it, but I believe it.

Of course you did.

Good day,

Your advice seemed like a bit of a redundancy.  I publicly stated to the mods here, including you, that I did not want the label. What difference would a private request have on such matters?

That's way things are done around here.  Give us a good reason to remove it.   'Just because I don't want it' isn't a good reason.  

I'd like to have no tag. I prefer this because I dislike nomenclatures. This is because nomenclatures  solidify this thing called "i" with impregnated assumptions and meanings.  

Happy New Year, Watcher.

You may have noted that I did say that I was risking self-refutation by saying such things. the reason I said it was that I tend to occassionally abside by--albeit under protest--to the practice of nomenclatures because its intertwined within our language and culture.

I hope this helps.

I just offered a reason why that extends further than 'i don't want it'. But, still, perhaps you may not find my reason any good.  Similarly, I am not too fond of your subtle argumentum ad antiquitatem--ain't life a bitch.

That's way things are done around here. Give us a good reason to remove it. 'Just because I don't want it' isn't a good reason.