AtD blurb - "false" religiosity?

[jbor at bigpond.com]

The assertion he is making is that *false* religiosity is a bad thing. 
I can't imagine that the implicit distinction between "false" and 
"true" religiosity is one that an atheist would even think to make, in 
the context. It's certainly no mere acknowledgement "that some people 
are religious".

My point wasn't that the statement in the blurb is an open endorsement 
of P's "religiosity", only that it's another indication in a fairly 
extensive catalogue of indications that he does personally believe in a 
god or gods. I think it's as reasonable to deduce that from what he has 
written over the years and what has been recorded about his life as it 
is to deduce his "Leftie" political leanings from that same corpus of 
information. Simple as that. And, just for the record, I'm not 
religious.

best

On 17/08/2006, michael at michael-hussmann.de wrote:

> Acknowledging that some people are religious isn't much different from
> acknowledging that some people are paranoid. It doesn't imply that one
> is endorsing either world view. And if one draws a distinction between
> real and fake religiosity (or real and fake paranoia, or whatever), it
> still doesn't imply such an endorsement.

>> it's more and more apparent that P is a Theist or Deist of some 
>> stripe (why else the distinction implicit in "false religiosity"?) 
>> Again, the particular stripe isn't clear (and is his own business), 
>> but I think it's reasonable to assume that he's not an atheist.

>>> It's not as if anyone would be particularly surprised to hear him 
>>> announce himself once and for all as a "Leftie" (though the 
>>> particular flavour of "Leftie" he is still remains unclear).
>>
>>> "[...] it is a time of unrestrained corporate greed, false 
>>> religiosity, moronic fecklessness, and evil intent in high places. 
>>> No reference to the present day is intended or should be inferred."
>>