Joanna Sheldon wrote:
>
> If atheism comes up, it's only as a response to theism, though, isn't it.
> Loud, insistent theism. One feels obliged to point out there are other
> ways to approach the problem. The problem of mor(t)ality.
Yes, the very language aids the religous: "atheism" can't be named except as a negation of theism, as though theism were the given. Over the long run what has to be aimed at is a general social condition (which actually exists in some nations) in which naturalism if not materialism is a given, "theism" or any equivalent an uncouth exception. In the meantime, it is necessary to treat religion (and irreligion) as merely private and not to be allowed to interfere with unity (primarily but not only political) achieved on other grounds. A fairly large number of the people in the local DMDSG are heavily into religion, but they are also dependent (or need to be dependent) on various social services, particularly disability aid. Hence they are amazingly immune to nonsense about "responsibility." They feel acutely sad that my atheism is going to damn me, but in the meantime they agree with me on a lot of things.
Could we get that "crackpots" out of the subject lines. I know I started it, but it really is misleading and does encourage mere sneers rather than analysis.
Carrol