Does antitheism exist?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The multiverse is one of the many reasons why it's fairly easy to dismiss the 'fine tuning' argument; they take it seriously because it's an intriguing idea in its own right, it only serves an ancillary purpose of rendering the fine-tuning argument moot.

Here we go, You seem to be making a ''My unfalsifiable supposition trumps your observation''. How are we in a position to dismiss fine tuning with an unfalsifiable or if we consider the fine tuning as evidence of a God: Dismissing one unfalsifiable with another unfalsifiable?

It seems that consciousness is your big, fear, Yes I think we can use the word fear here, or, maybe the hint of omnipotency?

[Outrider]

I have acknowledged that we are are in unfalsifiable territory. That is enough. You have yet to wean yourself off the drug of empiricism.

I don't need to

[quote[Here we go, You seem to be making a ''My unfalsifiable supposition trumps your observation''  How are we in a position to dismiss fine tuning with an unfalsifiable[/quote]

No, we're in the 'this entirely plausible possibility completely undermines one of the underpinnings of your argument' scenario.  Fine tuning is dependent upon the presumption that there is a significance to our universe being stable in a region that produces a physical reality in which we can emerge: in the entirely plausible multiverse scenario, where there are any number of universes there is no reason to presume that the particulars of our universe have any more significance than random chance.

It seems that consciousness is your big, fear, Yes I think we can use the word fear here, or, maybe the hint of omnipotency?

Religions are one of my fears.  Large-scale organisations with a totalitarian bent and a demonstrable history of misogyny, homophobia, racism and anti-intellectualism that they are weaning themselves from far more slowly than the rest of humanity's projects.  The idea of a conscious creator of our universe is one of the underpinnings of these religions, hence it's a strategic argument for its knock-on benefits.

Oh, and a "Quest for Truth"^TM for my ideological drive towards empiricism and "Philosophical Materialism"^(c) of course, but mainly the first.

O.

[Stranger]

Here we go, You seem to be making a ''My unfalsifiable supposition trumps your observation''. How are we in a position to dismiss fine tuning with an unfalsifiable or if we consider the fine tuning as evidence of a God: Dismissing one unfalsifiable with another unfalsifiable?

I see you still haven't managed to understand the basics of logical argument and the burden of proof.....     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't need to

Then why, we ask ourselves are you hanging around here. Fortunately for us you have left us the droppings of challengeable notions.

Religions are one of my fears.  Large-scale organisations with a totalitarian bent and a demonstrable history of misogyny, homophobia, racism and anti-intellectualism that they are weaning themselves from far more slowly than the rest of humanity's projects.  The idea of a conscious creator of our universe is one of the underpinnings of these religions, hence it's a strategic argument for its knock-on benefits.

Oh, and a "Quest for Truth"^TM for my ideological drive towards empiricism and "Philosophical Materialism"^(c) of course, but mainly the first.

O.

Once we factor in pagan and atheist large scale organisation with a totalitarian bent, a demonstrable history of mysogeny, homophobia racism and anti intellectualism all that you seem justifiably against, rather than just labelling bad things 'religious', therefore are the founding principles of Christianity and the other world religions.

Unfortunately for you we can accept that consciousness could be mechanistic and in an infinite mechanism is highly probable and not at all dismissible so that removes another leg from your stool since you have recreated that which you fear , well not you perhaps, logic. You seem to be plumping for consciousness possible in a non infinite universe but dismissable in an infinite greater reality.

And another thing you seem to be keen on empirical observation and ''all that we know'' All that we know is that if life and universes are to be created it is likely that intelligent beings will be doing the creating.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I see you still haven't managed to understand the basics of logical argument and the burden of proof.....     

I think we are into unfalsifiability and logic as notions on safer foundations than ''burden of proof'' Me old fruit.

[Stranger]

I think we are into unfalsifiability and logic as notions on safer foundations than ''burden of proof'' Me old fruit.

Spectacularly proving my point.

It's not one or the other, the burden of proof is integral to any logical approach to anything, and you keep completely misunderstanding other people's approach, apparently because you simply have no grasp of logic in general and the burden of proof in particular.

[Outrider]

Then why, we ask ourselves are you hanging around here.

Shits and giggles, mainly, with the occasional high-minded venture into anti-theism for good measure.

Once we factor in pagan and atheist large scale organisation with a totalitarian bent, a demonstrable history of mysogeny, homophobia racism and anti intellectualism all that you seem justifiably against, rather than just labelling bad things 'religious', therefore are the founding principles of Christianity and the other world religions.

Oh boy...  Pagan organisations are, wait for it.... religious organisations!

As to atheist organisations, whilst there have been (USSR, China etc.) and they have undoubtedly been totalitarian, the atheism has come about from the totalitarianism, not the other way around.  By contrast, religions with their tendency towards absolute authorities have a tendency towards the totalitarian; it springs from the ideology rather than the other way around.

I have not suggested that religious organisations have a monopoly on the worst of human behaviour, but it's one of the more obvious proponents.  As to what constitutes the 'found principles of Christianity' you don't have to go far on this board to find that homophobia's high on that list, and you don't have to travel far in the media to find the racism inherent in much of the US's Christianity or the misogyny to most African expressions of not just Christianity but all the Abrahamic faiths.

Unfortunately for you we can accept that consciousness could be mechanistic and in an infinite mechanism is highly probable and not at all dismissible so that removes another leg from your stool since you have recreated that which you fear , well not you perhaps, logic.

You could argue that in an infinitely large mechanistic reality that consciousness not only possible but possibly inevitable - I might even be inclined to agree with you.  However, for you to undermine the point I'm making you'd have to show reason that it was specifically necessary in the inception of our universe, and as inevitable as it might be in an infinite arena, in the singular instance that just doesn't hold up.

You seem to be plumping for consciousness possible in a non infinite universe but dismissable in an infinite greater reality.

No, I'm accepting notional possibility, even probability, somewhere in there, but I'm not accepting that you've done enough to demonstrate its involvement in our universe which could well have come about without conscious involvement.

And another thing you seem to be keen on empirical observation and ''all that we know'' All that we know is that if life and universes are to be created it is likely that intelligent beings will be doing the creating.

Let's overlook the loaded use of the term 'creation' in there, with its implicit creator that you're trying to establish here.

You keep using the word 'know', but you don't seem to be using it in a consistent manner.  Empirical knowledge is inherently qualified, but confidence can be built with iterative investigation though alone it will never reach proof.  We have one example of life, and no definitive explanation of how it arose, and therefore we 'know' squat with regards to that.  We have one universe, and that's the subject of this discussion because we know precisely nothing about exactly how that came about, either.  So all that we know of the 'creation' of life and universe is... nothing.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spectacularly proving my point.

It's not one or the other, the burden of proof is integral to any logical approach to anything, and you keep completely misunderstanding other people's approach, apparently because you simply have no grasp of logic in general and the burden of proof in particular.

No it isn't . It's a grey area, a bit of a moveable feast, Do you have a burden of proof because you believe something? What constitutes a claim? Can you argue from a philosophy all your life and claim you don't hold it? Can you implicitly claim? Did a theist make a claim sometime in the past and therefore that's it...... All theists have made the claim? Can I commute my claim to a belief? What influence does acknowledging that a claim is unfalsifiable have on your burden or are rabid redneck non claimers allowed to harrass you FOREVER? I don't know but I do know when something is unfalsifiable etc.

Of course I grasp logic. The trouble isn't with me it's people who flip flop back into science when the logical going gets tough.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Percy Pants on Fire,

Of course I grasp logic.

Then why not finally abandon illogic and try the logic you claim to grasp instead? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Shits and giggles, mainly, with the occasional high-minded venture into anti-theism for good measure.

Oh boy...  Pagan organisations are, wait for it.... religious organisations!

All right then The Romans and the Nazis

As to atheist organisations, whilst there have been (USSR, China etc.) and they have undoubtedly been totalitarian, the atheism has come about from the totalitarianism, not the other way around.[/quote] You what? 

I have not suggested that religious organisations have a monopoly on the worst of human behaviour, but it's one of the more obvious proponents.  As to what constitutes the 'found principles of Christianity' you don't have to go far on this board to find that homophobia's high on that list

Found principles, what the fuck are they?

and you don't have to travel far in the media to find the racism inherent in much of the US's Christianity or the misogyny to most African expressions of not just Christianity but all the Abrahamic faiths.

Misogyny has apparently been rife in the small New atheist community and what are we to make of people who believe the ideal cultural state and goal of humanity is to be middle class British or swedish or american wasp culture. where for instance in the states and UK are the leading Black atheists? Why is the world ticketyboo as long as it is European?  I guess you can be racist and not actually aware as it's effects seep out.

Let's overlook the loaded use of the term 'creation' in there, with its implicit creator that you're trying to establish here.

I don't know what other word you would use that wasn't loaded the other way.

You keep using the word 'know', but you don't seem to be using it in a consistent manner.  Empirical knowledge is inherently qualified, but confidence can be built with iterative investigation though alone it will never reach proof.  We have one example of life, and no definitive explanation of how it arose, and therefore we 'know' squat with regards to that.  We have one universe, and that's the subject of this discussion because we know precisely nothing about exactly how that came about, either.  So all that we know of the 'creation' of life and universe is... nothing.

I'm parodying you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Percy Pants on Fire,
 

Only when you're around with your nifty footwork partnering that old turdpolisher, Stud.

[Stranger]

No it isn't . It's a grey area, a bit of a moveable feast...

No it isn't. If you make a claim, it's your burden of proof. What you continually seem to get confused about is that if your attempt at supporting a claim basically involves a guess, and people point out that other guesses are available, that does undermine your attempted support for your claim but the other guesses don't constitute claims in themselves.

Can you argue from a philosophy all your life and claim you don't hold it?

Can you show that anybody is doing that?

Did a theist make a claim sometime in the past and therefore that's it All theists have made the claim? Can I commute my claim to a belief? What influence does acknowledging that a claim is unfalsifiable have on your burden or are rabid redneck non claimers allowed to harrass you FOREVER? I don't know but I do know when something is unfalsifiable etc.

Now you're lapsing into incoherence.

Of course I grasp logic.

Your posts are very good evidence that you don't.

I've asked repeatedly that you get behind a specific argument and set out the logical steps (or cite a relatively short summary of one) but you never will. You keep on making vague references to different arguments and then slip from one to another or make mistakes about the burden of proof as I described above.

The evasion alone would suggest that even you recognise, at some level, that you don't grasp logic well enough to have the confidence to defend a specific argument.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it isn't. If you make a claim, it's your burden of proof.

Yes, I get that what i'm not clear about is what you guys mean by making a claim. Because of all the 'fiddlin' and a 'diddlin' and shenanigans that have gone on at the atheist logic manufactory.(Courtiers reply and Dunning Kruger. Russells Teapot and Law's one guess is not as good as another for example).

[Outrider]

All right then The Romans and the Nazis

The Romans had a religion that was intertwined with their social and political lives to my understanding, but I'm not sufficiently up to speed with the detail to comment. As to the decidedly Catholic Nazis, what was your point there?

You what?

Christianity's totalitarianism comes from the religion - having the ultimate authority as the figurehead leads to absolute decree, divine right to rule, Papel infallibility and such nonsense.  By contrast, the USSR and China's political and cultural totalitarianism adopted atheism to nullify the competing power systems religious organisations would try to wield.  Atheism was manifested in those instances by organisations which derived their totalitarian nature from other places; atheism isn't an effective insulation against totalitarianism, but it doesn't have the inherent tendency like  religions - and the Abrahamic faiths, in particular - do.

Found principles, what the fuck are they?

A typo, my fault - it should have read 'founding principals'.

Misogyny has apparently been rife in the small New atheist community and what are we to make of people who believe the ideal cultural state and goal of humanity is to be middle class British or swedish or american wasp culture.

Misogyny has been rife throughout western culture, where it has been embedded by centuries of pernicious influence from... hmm... what's the 'P' for in 'WASP culture' again?  Misogyny has been observed in the behaviour of some atheists, some very prominent atheists; can you show where it derives from the atheism, like I can show where it's expressly required in the foundational document of the Abrahamic religions?

Where for instance in the states and UK are the leading Black atheists?

You mean like Clive Aruede?  There is some evidence to suggest that so far as the UK is concerned not only are Black (and other minority ethnic communities) still a small percentage of the populace, they are also more likely to be religious in nature, so the answer there is in part that there are just a particularly small number of black atheists out there at all, and they are in many instances wary of 'outing' themselves within their communities.  It's a situation that a number of atheist movements in the UK are actively addressing.

Why is the world ticketyboo as long as it is European?

I wasn't aware that was one of the criteria.

I guess you can be racist and not actually aware as it's effects seep out.

In many parts of the world cultural and instutional preconceptions around race are far more impactful and significant than individual malicious acts of gross racism, yes.

I don't know what other word you would use that wasn't loaded the other way.

And yet you're usually so good at pulling jargon out of nowhere.  Try just thinking about the universe beginning, regardless of how.

I'm parodying you.

Unfortunately it seems you're parodying you, and Poe's Law's kicking in hard.

O.
[/quote]

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it isn't. If you make a claim, it's your burden of proof. What you continually seem to get confused about is that if your attempt at supporting a claim basically involves a guess, and people point out that other guesses are available, that does undermine your attempted support for your claim but the other guesses don't constitute claims in themselves.

Guess? Another word kidnapped and bebuggered by atheists on this board.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Because of all the 'fiddlin' and a 'diddlin' and shenanigans that have gone on at the atheist logic manufactory.(Courtiers reply and Dunning Kruger. Russells Teapot and Law's one guess is not as good as another for example).

In which ol' Perce first tells us that he grasps logic, and then dismisses as "'fiddlin' and a 'diddlin'" the perfectly reasonable logical arguments that undo his attempts at it. 

[Stranger]

Yes, I get that what i'm not clear about is what you guys mean by making a claim.

I don't really see why you seem so confused (other than that it probably suitd your agenda).

Because of all the 'fiddlin' and a 'diddlin' and shenanigans that have gone on at the atheist logic manufactory.(Courtiers reply and Dunning Kruger. Russells Teapot and Law's one guess is not as good as another for example).

Russell's teapot is an illustration of the burden of proof, the courtier's reply is a kind of fallacy, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a kind of cogitative bias (I'm generally a big fan of directly accusing people of having it because it's pretty much inevitable that they won't recognise if they do). Your point, however, is a mystery.

[Stranger]

Guess? Another word kidnapped and bebuggered by atheists on this board.

A guess is a fairly straightforward concept. Again, your point is........?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Romans had a religion that was intertwined with their social and political lives to my understanding, but I'm not sufficiently up to speed with the detail to comment. As to the decidedly Catholic Nazis, what was your point there?

Decidedly catholic? Hitler? Himmler? Those that worshipped Hitler...... Catholic?

Christianity's totalitarianism comes from the religion  By contrast, the USSR and China's political and cultural totalitarianism adopted atheism to nullify the competing power systems religious organisations would try to wield.

First of all Atheism is integral to Marxism Religion is rejected because it is seen to drug people into a torpor so no doubt you will argue that religion causes totalitarianism. Therefore Atheism is at the heart of the founding principles of Marxism and Russian and other Totalitarianism Secondly, where in Christ and the new testament does the totalitarianism come from when it seems to be the story of people suffering from Totalitarianism, a totalitarianism muched admired by AC Grayling who among others blames christianity for it's demise?

A typo, my fault - it should have read 'founding principals'.

Misogyny has been rife throughout western culture, where it has been embedded by centuries of pernicious influence from... hmm... what's the 'P' for in 'WASP culture' again?  Misogyny has been observed in the behaviour of some atheists, some very prominent atheists; can you show where it derives from the atheism, like I can show where it's expressly required in the foundational document of the Abrahamic religions?

I'm afraid all one has to do is substitute the P for protestant with A for atheist.....or academic given the crisis of misogyny in academia.

You mean like Clive Aruede?  There is some evidence to suggest that so far as the UK is concerned not only are Black (and other minority ethnic communities) still a small percentage of the populace, they are also more likely to be religious in nature, so the answer there is in part that there are just a particularly small number of black atheists out there at all, and they are in many instances wary of 'outing' themselves within their communities.  It's a situation that a number of atheist movements in the UK are actively addressing.

And what position does he hold in the atheist world? After all the four horsemen were suspiciously white, male, middle class, academic and moving out from them........

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which ol' Perce first tells us that he grasps logic, and then dismisses as "'fiddlin' and a 'diddlin'" the perfectly reasonable logical arguments that undo his attempts at it.

Yeah right.

Courtiers reply: Gives licence for a person to talk about stuff they boast of knowing nothing about.

Dunning Kruger: Takes licence to talk about stuff they might have expertise in away because supposedly they don't know anything about it.

A couple of contradictory belters there, Old chap.

[Outrider]

Decidedly catholic? Hitler? Himmler? Those that worshipped Hitler Catholic?

Trying to keep up with this and work, so the typos are flowing: decidedly Christian (although not an insignificant portion of that was Catholic). They followed Hitler, arguably at least some of them idolised Hitler, but they worshipped the Christian Trinity in the vast majority.  May 1939 census in Germany listed 54% Protestant, 40% Catholic and a further 3.5% other believers in the Christian god.

First of all Atheism is integral to Marxism

Yep.  That's only tangentially related to the Marxist-Leninism of Soviet USSR, and even less relevant to China.

Religion is rejected because it is seen to drug people into a torpor so no doubt you will argue that religion causes totalitarianism.

Marx rejected religion in his ideology because it saw it as a dulling of the human mind to accept fairy stories.  Lenin and Stalin enforced it because it was politically useful at suppressing dissenting power structures.

Therefore Atheism is at the heart of the founding principles of Marxism and Russian and other Totalitarianism

No.  Marx advocated atheism and thought the state should not have a religion, but he didn't advocate persecution of the religious. It wasn't until Lenin interpreted religion as intended to enact the 'exploitation and stupefaction of the working class' that it became a target.  It wasn't until Lenin's primacy that the USSR required atheism and it was arguably Stalin that actively hunted down the churches.

It was that backdrop that flavoured the early Communist China antipathy towards religion, which mellowed as the Leninist elements that shaped the Cultural Revolution faded away, and in the late 70s China remained just as communist but instituted freedom of religion policies so long as those religions were state run and state sanctioned - it wasn't the atheism they believed in, it was the power. 

Secondly, where in Christ and the new testament does the totalitarianism come from when it seems to be the story of people suffering from Totalitarianism

You have an all-knowing god who has distilled his wisdom into inviolable tenets; the largest branch of Christianity has it as an express article of faith that, on questions of religion, their leader is infallible.  The idea that there is absolute right in the hands of the faithful is written into the stories that are the foundation of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

a totalitarianism muched admired by AC Grayling who among others blames christianity for it's demise?

Grayling's allowed to admire what he likes, I don't know to what it is you're referring, but it doesn't change what I'm saying.

I'm afraid all one has to do is substitute the P for protestant with A for atheist.....

Except that Western Europe isn't predominantly the result of the influence of White Anglo-Saxon Atheists, is it?

or academic given the crisis of misogyny in academia.

Another area that could be seen to be working its way out of Abrahamic influence, slowly.

And what position does he hold in the atheist world?

He's the founder and chair of The Association of Black Humanists, and a member of the board of Humanists UK.

After all the four horsemen were suspiciously white, male, middle class, academic and moving out from them........

Hardly suspicious, given that describes the majority of the leading musical acts in the world, the majority of the best paid actors, the majority of leading academics, the majority of leading clergy.... Current head of British Humanist Association - Tamar Gosh (Vice Chair Ann O'Connell). American Athesists founded by Madalyn O'Hare, current vice presidents Alison Gill and Debbie Gillard (under a male president).  How long before we get a female Archbishop of Canterbury, do you reckon? Or Archbishop of Abuja? A female Pope?

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Yeah right.

Courtiers reply: Gives licence for a person to talk about stuff they boast of knowing nothing about.

Dunning Kruger: Takes licence to talk about stuff they might have expertise in away because supposedly they don't know anything about it.

A couple of contradictory belters there, Old chap.

In which Ol' Perce (presumably deliberately) misdescribes two issues he doesn't like but can't rebut, and just ignores the rest. For someone who claims to "grasp logic" the near-total reliance on straw men and avoidance is remarkable.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Trying to keep up with this and work, so the typos are flowing: decidedly Christian (although not an insignificant portion of that was Catholic). They followed Hitler, arguably at least some of them idolised Hitler, but they worshipped the Christian Trinity in the vast majority.  May 1939 census in Germany listed 54% Protestant, 40% Catholic and a further 3.5% other believers in the Christian god.

Yep.  That's only tangentially related to the Marxist-Leninism of Soviet USSR, and even less relevant to China.

Marx rejected religion in his ideology because it saw it as a dulling of the human mind to accept fairy stories.  Lenin and Stalin enforced it because it was politically useful at suppressing dissenting power structures.

No.  Marx advocated atheism and thought the state should not have a religion, but he didn't advocate persecution of the religious. It wasn't until Lenin interpreted religion as intended to enact the 'exploitation and stupefaction of the working class' that it became a target.  It wasn't until Lenin's primacy that the USSR required atheism and it was arguably Stalin that actively hunted down the churches.

It was that backdrop that flavoured the early Communist China antipathy towards religion, which mellowed as the Leninist elements that shaped the Cultural Revolution faded away, and in the late 70s China remained just as communist but instituted freedom of religion policies so long as those religions were state run and state sanctioned - it wasn't the atheism they believed in, it was the power. 

You have an all-knowing god who has distilled his wisdom into inviolable tenets; the largest branch of Christianity has it as an express article of faith that, on questions of religion, their leader is infallible.  The idea that there is absolute right in the hands of the faithful is written into the stories that are the foundation of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.


Grayling's allowed to admire what he likes, I don't know to what it is you're referring, but it doesn't change what I'm saying.

Except that Western Europe isn't predominantly the result of the influence of White Anglo-Saxon Atheists, is it?

Another area that could be seen to be working its way out of Abrahamic influence, slowly.

He's the founder and chair of The Association of Black Humanists, and a member of the board of Humanists UK.

Hardly suspicious, given that describes the majority of the leading musical acts in the world, the majority of the best paid actors, the majority of leading academics, the majority of leading clergy.... Current head of British Humanist Association - Tamar Gosh (Vice Chair Ann O'Connell). American Athesists founded by Madalyn O'Hare, current vice presidents Alison Gill and Debbie Gillard (under a male president).  How long before we get a female Archbishop of Canterbury, do you reckon? Or Archbishop of Abuja? A female Pope?

O.

Hitler and the Nazis followed Neitszchian principles not Catholic. Neitszche beloved of many atheists so at the end of the day your musings on it being Christian are at best alternative history. Of course once you ditch God there is just materialism left and obviously you begin to think that you leave morality behind.

It's interesting that you have conceded much in our speculations especially an understanding of the underived and that now you are attempting a moral argument since that is where I wanted to go. I'm not sure that arguing morality as if it were an absolute and then saying at the end of the day ''well, it's not really real'' is necessary that convincing though.

I still cannot see how you are deriving totalitarianism from Christ and the New Testament.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

.
Yep.  That's only tangentially related to the Marxist-Leninism of Soviet USSR, and even less relevant to China.

Marx rejected religion in his ideology because it saw it as a dulling of the human mind to accept fairy stories.  Lenin and Stalin enforced it because it was politically useful at suppressing dissenting power structures.

No.  Marx advocated atheism and thought the state should not have a religion, but he didn't advocate persecution of the religious. It wasn't until Lenin interpreted religion as intended to enact the 'exploitation and stupefaction of the working class' that it became a target.  It wasn't until Lenin's primacy that the USSR required atheism and it was arguably Stalin that actively hunted down the churches.

It was that backdrop that flavoured the early Communist China antipathy towards religion, which mellowed as the Leninist elements that shaped the Cultural Revolution faded away, and in the late 70s China remained just as communist but instituted freedom of religion policies so long as those religions were state run and state sanctioned - it wasn't the atheism they believed in, it was the power. 

But Outrider, the same type of story could be told of early Christianity only with far less or indeed anything to suggest totalitarianism.

Marxism has revolution and atheism and antireligion in it's very DNA as does Neitszchism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

 The crisis of misogyny in academia.

Another area that could be seen to be working its way out of Abrahamic influence, slowly

Fucking hell....... So if say, an atheist academic got caught say holding someone's breast, that wouldn't be exploitation of his academic position or his opportunity as an atheist celebrity of great zeal, that would be down to his ancestral religious heritage.