Do you mean moral philosophy is the province of religion and science has nothing to say about it? (That would be an application of NOMA to that dichotomy.)

If so, that’s not only false (all moral truth derives from scientific facts; and philosophy is just science with less data), I’m very well known for arguing that it is false. See my book Sense and Goodness without God and my talk Is Philosophy Stupid?

Sorry, I still don’t understand what you are saying. NOMA is not about nihilism vs. empathy.

As per your response to Comment 11, a discussion on compatibility vs Gould’s NOMA is probably an argument which you already consider settled… or at least an argument that both nihilistic atheists and empathetic atheists have agreed upon.

I can’t fathom any intelligible point in your comment. Sorry.

Religions are systems of false beliefs.
Get over it

As a skeptic toward both atheism and religion, I have an educated guess, based on naturalism, that compatibilism is a remedy for your black-and-white thinking. Do you think that this might also be a distinction between nihilistic atheists and empathetic atheists… the capacity to entertain a belief in compatibility? Are you so certain that there are zero religious beliefs which are true. Or do you make a distinction between religions as “systems of false beliefs” and their beliefs which might be true?

What of the religious belief that faith is the reality of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen… so that which is seen was not made out of visible things… as compared to this statement by Max Planck – “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”

Blasphemy towards nihilistic atheistic ideology? Is this Max Planck’s assumption?

Yes, challenging false beliefs – who doesn’t want that? Great stuff. It’s this ideal of termination or ending or various ideas on that theme that I say is so loaded. (And by the way, “get over it” isn’t epistemology.)

Mistaking education for war is your problem.

Ending illiteracy does not involve any of the shit you are talking about.

So why do you freak out when we want to do the same to religion?

Ending false beliefs is what we should all want. And what we can all do by correcting bad epistemologies through criticism and education. Religions are systems of false beliefs.

Get over it.

So are you in favour of “ending religion”?

I am in favor of removing all bad epistemologies and false beliefs. The rest will sort itself out.

Ah right, well I can give you a straight answer to that question even if you can’t bring yourself to take responsibility for your ambivalence and answer the question. I am totally and utterly against any concept of “ending religion”. The phrase is awash with malign connotations as anyone with any human understanding of our era should know.

So you can stick your epistemology if you can’t even get off the starting block on this one when the signs were so obvious the first time you were challenged on it, let alone the second. I asked you twice to clarify your position, and you just muddied the waters, then closed the discussion.

Oh, you don’t want a discussion? That’s great. Nor do I.

As you will find from the evidence there, in and through the very link you indicate, if you bother pursuing it, they reveal the fact that they are atheists. That’s why we claim they are atheists. They are.

If Chimpout.com remains down, I believe there will be zero available support for your claim that the text that Ashley quoted in her blog post represents evidence that racism is “disturbingly common among atheists.” There’s simply no apparent connection between the atheist movement and Chimpout.com. Even if there is a member of Chimpout.com who fails to believe in any gods, does that reasonably provide evidence that the extreme hate on that site is “disturbingly common among atheists”? Do you honestly think that is even remotely true? Wouldn’t it be prudent to remove or change that link? Given the state of the evidence, wouldn’t you expect anyone else to do so?

Is it your goal to lead people to believe this false claim? Because right now that’s what you’re doing.