I don’t pay much attention to PZ Myers these days, as he seems rather irrelevant. For example, there was a time when his blog entries would routinely net 100s of comments. But after checking out his blog recently, they seem to net only a few dozen these days.
Anyway, Myers is back to making the case that atheism is more than just a lack of belief in God:
I’ve been trying to understand how people — not just people, but self-declared “leaders of the atheist movement” — can claim that atheism is only the lack of belief in any gods, and further, that absence of god-belief entails no other significant consequences. It’s been difficult, because that way of thinking is alien to me; atheism for me is all tangled up in naturalism and scientific thinking, and it’s not just a single, simple cause but has a whole cascade of meaning. But I’m trying, and I think I’m beginning to get it. There is a reasonable way to regard atheism as important while at the same time limiting its import.
Yet as we have seen with the Elevator Wars, this extra dimension to atheism seems to be depend on the atheist. Myers mixes his atheism with some rather extreme political correctness and hedonism. Other atheists think he is a wingnut for thinking atheism needs these extra ingredients. Who is right? And how would we know?