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

Oh Pericles, is that what you call a brand? lol, read up on it, it's a scale of belief he uses that includes theism. It's nothing to do with a brand of atheism.

Gnostic and agnostic have naught to do with belief. It's a descriptive term about knowledge, not atheism, which is lack of belief.

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

No they aren't, read what I wrote. "The only thing atheists have in common is a lack of a belief in a god" then "I would also point out MANY of those you term 'new atheists'..."

Note MANY.

Please try and keep up.

"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]"

See, someone else that has no idea what they are talking about.

There were speakers that EXPLICITLY confronted ridicule of faith at the convention. You just conveniently just box all attending into your assumptions, probably because you are fixated on a couple of speakers and assume everyone else is too.

Where you even there? Obviously not.

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

So if someone says they don't believe in a god, but say they cannot know that a god exists for sure, you reckon they are not atheist?

hurr durr

*Some things elevate your perception and enhance your experience of the world - and they are worth pondering simply for the feelings they arouse.*

That's fine by me, Poirot. Whatever floats your boat. Some people
thrive on "magic", personally my enhanced perception comes from
further understanding, as the pieces of the puzzle fit together.

Which reminds me, I really should start an internet business selling
pixie dust, I betcha heaps would actually buy the stuff!

Houllie actually has a point. I do spend quite a bit of time
observing other species including the dogs and sheep. I even had a
pet lamb once called Lucky (cause she was frigging lucky alright)
and brought her up with the dogs, until she had to accept the reality
that she was a sheep and had to interact with other sheep. I learned
heaps. And for Squeers benefit, even some dogs have a sense of
humour.

Yabby,

Here you go again, presuming to know "what floats my boat". I used the term "magic" to denote myriad perceptions that are common to human experience.
Never mind the Pixie Dust. You run a great line in flippant arrogance when it suits your agenda - and in keeping with the Spongebob motif, I vote you the "Squidward Tentacles" of OLO!

Squeers,

"....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?"

Reminded me of a passage by Pascal Boyer in his book "Religion Explained" where he told the story of a dinner at a Cambridge college where the assembled guests had been discussing 'witches and other such exotica', when:

"...a prominent Cambridge theologian turned to me and said: 'This is what makes anthropology so fascinating and so difficult too. You have to explain how people can believe in such nonsense.' Which left me dumbfounded. The conversation had moved on before I could find a pertinent repartee--to do with kettles and pots..."

Houellie,

As to whether I've tried mind-altering substances. When I was a kid, I liked to put ice-cream in coca-cola. Does that count? : )

Wow, Poirot has given me an award. Why thank you, Poirot :)

Hey, there is no problem with all that magic floating your boat.
Whatever gets you through the night, its no concern of mine.

But if the boy would like some real pixie dust, just let me know,
I could sell you some.

If the Catholics can sell so many people a ticket to heaven, then
I should have no problem flogging the pixie dust online.

I'm disappointed Poirot... You haven't taken the opportunity to make the ironic observation that you've now lived to see -

Athiests preying.

Squeers,

>>the book I have is "Beyond the Hoax" (Sokal 2008)… If you have a copy perhaps you can recommend sections,<<
This is a different book to Fashonable Nonsense and Sokal was apparently encouraged to write it because of the success of the latter.

I read the book - most of it - some time ago, and reported about my impressions in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10189#167444 and the sequel. I was not terribly enthusiastic about what it says, nothing comparable to what I felt when reading Fashionable Nonsense.

So if you care about my advice - after rereading now what I wrote two years ago, and due to the fact that you own the book - I would suggest you read Part II, no need to read Part III (Part I is a kind of apology for things that happened between Sokal and the “post-modernists” about 15 yeras ago). You will get a comprehensive (apologetic?) explanation of a physicist’s view of things, though I find Steve Weinberg mentioned in the previous post still more philosophically sophisticated though not as systematic as Sokal in your book. And, of course you will find no discussion, no presentation of the social scientist’s position, as you would in the two collections mentioned before sub (iii).

Houellebecq,

I appreciate that you accept we two have very different approaches to discussions on this OLO, especially those where we might be tempted to feel some nonchalant superiority (e.g. finding the discussion “reminiscent of what my mind goes through when I have a high fever”) over those who take the discussion seriously.

WmTrevor,

>>George, you might appreciate Houellebecq better by regarding him as the OLO version of pre-Socratic Democritus...<<
Well, maybe. I objected to the quote, not to Houellebecq, whose other contributions on OLO I do not remember having seen. Now I have read more and agree I should have simply ignored that post. As for Democritus, as far as I know there is nothing that would indicate he used a language comparable in form to what I objected to.