Atheism isn't a worldview, but

[Fred]

Why didnt you just start a thread asking everyone what their worldview was?

I suppose I could have but I thought it might save time to give a bit of background because it's common to mistake the worldview and think it's a person in total, which it isn't.

I really dont get the point of attacking what Atheism is when everyone has defined it a billion times already.

I'm not attacking atheism or anything else. This isn't about atheism; it's about worldviews, and it's not about attacking those, either. It's about the wider context that the atheist/theist debate is springing from.

---

According to his post on Lunchbox's thread, Fred believes that there are only 3 worldviews.

No, Fred knows there are more than three. He was focusing on the three main players in the culture wars, and I'm pretty sure he mentioned that along the way.

Everyone's perspective and perception of the world is different.
They might have things in common with multitudes of other folks, but somewhere in there, there is something that is different.

Right. Snowflakes and all that. Worldviews are just windows people look out of from different parts of development. It's not a person and nobody is locked into whatever one they are looking out of.

Atheism isn't a worldview, but...

But what, Fred?

But worldviews inform our pov, and the view from each is different. Also, the three big ones on the stage right now, mythic, rational, and relativist, don't like each other at all, hence all the squabbling and talking past each other.

---

It's good to know that nobody else understands what he is getting at either. I can't find what his point is, even after the close examination of his first post.

Is he trying to establish that there are only 3 world views? Is he trying to say that atheists have to be rationalists?

No and no. Look, rhythm's brahmin bubble blowing aside, none of what I'm talking about is outside the box of developmental psych and sociology, Piaget and Gebser kind of stuff. Stages of development aren't hocus pocus; they've been studied extensively.

Mythics and rationalists are not compatable, btw. Opposite views.

Right. The rational level that springs up with the Renaissance and the Enlightenment was a reaction to the mythic,. and the relativist level was a reaction to the rational, kicked off with the romantics and that crowd.

All three are still in heavy rotation, with more fundies than rationalists than relativists, as would be expected because of the historical and developmental head start.

But the point is that you don't just dump the mythic when you move to rational, and you keep those when you go to relativist. They are all part of the family, but you know how families are, they bicker endlessly. You can be a firm rationalist and still use the mythic level when it suits you, just as a relativist can and a fundie can use the gifts of both of the others.

This is clearly seen underneath all the heated debate about the events of today's anniversary and the science builds planes and religion flies them into buildings tag.