George, you might appreciate Houellebecq better by regarding him as the OLO version of pre-Socratic Democritus...

*In order to transmit the awe of discovery and realisation (or even to get to get to that point), intuition, imagination and emotion are necessary to complete "meaning".*

Poirot, the thing is, imagination, intuitition and emotion are part
of how the mind works. Just different parts to the rational centres.
People piss on as if there is something magical to being human.
Sorry, but there is not.

Squeers, Sokal was the bloke whose name I could not think of, who
showed that alot of what comes from French philosophical circles
is just noise set to impress. Clearly you have been sucked in.
Ah well

Really, woot?

>>Atheism has no brands<<

You already gave me a couple - gnostic atheist and agnostic atheist. Dawkins seems to have seven, although he apparently gives them numbers, not names.

So it's a bit late for you to now try to claim that:

>>The only thing atheists have in common is a lack of a belief in a god<<

I was quite surprised to see this, given your earlier statement that...

>>I would also point out many of those you term 'new atheists' don't take the stance there is no god<<

Do I need to spell it out? These are entirely inconsistent positions, woot.

But if you are confused as to where you fit on the spectrum of non-belief (yet another contradiction in terms, for my money), go right ahead, get together and have a good old chin-wag about it. It makes sense to sit down and learn from atheists of other denominations...

>>...accepting and celebrating our diversity, our promotion of reason over faith, not stamping our foot and complaining about the other 'corrupting our atheism'<<

Eh? Who mentioned "corruption"? Oh, that's right. You did.

But in practical terms, the only unity you are able to paste onto the front of all these different branches of non-belief, is where you all agree to slag off religion[s]. Which leaves the door open for all sorts of people to point at you for being narrow-minded and vindictive. And which, it would seem, is a badge you also wear with pride.

>>The convention is simply a reflection of the huge amount of people that are sick of religious influence and privilege, ...sick of the arrogant, misinformed and bigoted approaches those that hold faith positions present<<

You are beginning to sound like the very people you despise for their arrogance and bigotry.

Incidentally:

>>Do you think you can know if a god someone claims exists or not, based on properties presented?<<

Absolutely I can. It doesn't.

Not a "different logical sphere" from "I do not believe in the existence of a deity" at all.

"People piss on as if there is something magical about being human."

Good then, Yabby. You inhabit your world of cut and dried rationality - and I'll continue to glean a little inspiration and 'magic' whenever it comes my way.

I don't give a toss whether it's "how the mind works" or if it's God or whatever. Some things elevate your perception and enhance your experience of the world - and they are worth pondering simply for the feelings they arouse.

Yabby:
<Squeers ... Clearly you have been sucked in.
Ah well>

How is your conclusion "clear", Yabby?
I've been dipping into Sokal, who calls himself an "old-fashioned Leftist" and spends a great many words qualifying his former position, with the benefit of hindsight. His main complaint seems to be about "sloppy thinking"--like the sample you've generously provided here, thanks. And he objects to the kind of politically correct thinking that insists dreamtime accounts of history, for instance (my for instance), are just as valid as history construed from documentary and artefactual evidence. I agree with him to a point--and this is an interesting one for Christians--but then what right do we have to deny say aboriginal mythology in favour of anthropology, when we still have so many creationists ourselves? I've read Clifford Geertz and Hayden White, as well as Dawkins and Gould and others, btw, have you?
Postmodernism correctly says that there are any number of discrete histories beside the official ones written by the victors. Indeed Herodotus was arguably the first postmodernist. Science has written a few crackpot histories itself, such as the history of Homo Sapiens (wise man) examined in Stephen J Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man".
I have an inscribed first edition (full of pressed flowers as old as the book, I think, that still retain their colour, beautiful!) called "The Fairy Tales of Science: a book for youth" (1859) that follows science from "the four elements" and "The Life of the Atom" to "The Magic of the Sunbeam", "Modern Alchemy", "The Invisible World (microscopy)" and even "A Flight through Space". All discovering the magic of science, somewhat patronisingly, to the young, but strictly according to the lights of the day.
All wrong, albeit charming.
Sokal's hoax was certainly an embarrassment for the editors of "Social Text", but both he and C P Snow have been engaged with and I defy anyone to declare a winner based on a fair analysis of the evidence.
Every year we have the "ignoble prizes" handed out to a packed field of candidates for the lamest science.

Good stuff too Poirot!

As long as you feel the magic, real or not, that's all that matters. It goes to my earlier point about why it doesn't even matter, because regardless of god not existing, you may not either. You're in my reality though, you lucky thing.

'Some things elevate your perception and enhance your experience of the world'

Just curious Poirot, but have you ever tried any mind altering drugs? They definitely elevate your perception and enhance your experience of the world. I think I have learnt all sorts of things over the years, and the appreciation you get in simple things changes, I know it's an unpopular view, but I wager my mind is expanded. One state trades on the other, and the training of the mind under the influence has saved my life twice when I couldn't rely on my mind for reasons of Nitrogen Narcosis and also... well, that's private.

I think Yabbs enjoys his senses and seems to be enthralled with nature, even if he doesn't think it's magical. He just sits quietly watching the sheep while he does it, and grunts out of the side of his mouth. No flies get in, and if a flowery Hollywood director were to see the expression on his face, there would be a blockbuster in the making.

Even the artists of the world would queue up to paint Yabbs, 'Man gazing at Grazing'. There's a prestigious art prize in the making. Dare I say it would be poetic.

I think the two of you mesh well. Just like Yabby would kick the dust and spit at the airy fairyness of it all, and the producers would yell Bravo! We've got something very special here! The more kicking, the more applause.

Contempt and idolisation, in perfect harmony.

squeers I see you one sponge bob and raise you Rasta Mouse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GwUV4GHLvA