# Are Fundamentalists the Atheist's best friend? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 27, 2010, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678 "2010-01-27T19:57:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/181 "2010-01-29T17:04:20Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Well I’ve found that for the most part atheists do not even understand what the role of religion is. Or how it plays a role in their own lives, or recognizing their own religious behavior. In short it is IMPOSSIBLE to live a life without religion. You can lie to yourself and say that you do, but there are always things you are religious about. Patriotism is a form of religion. Rabid adherence to an anti-religious stance is religious. Religion is about the forms and rituals that govern our cultural life. You can double-speak it to death if you want and claim that you’re not religious, but ultimately there will be some sort groupthink that will develop its own forms and rituals. By saying that religion is unecessary, or worse claiming that its the proper role of government to stop religious faith, you are merely replacing one set of forms and rituals for another. In America many atheists (Who don’t have the power to do so…yet) believe that religion should be diminished. THey side-step the freedom of religion clause by claiming that what they are advancing is not a religion. But it’s still a set of forms and rituals that define a culture. They disingenuously claim they are ‘pro-science’ but science is indifferent to your religious belief or (dishonestly claimed) lack thereof. Religion is what binds society together, whether it’s a belief in the state or a belief in God. At some point you exercise through common forms and rituals a belief and adherence to the importance of a higher power. If you do not, then there is no longer a society to speak of and it will break apart as there will no longer be any commonality between the people. I could refute this line by line, but it has been done many times before(and apparently deliberately ignored by you just as many times), so I’m just going to sum it up: Wrong. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/182 "2010-01-29T17:11:18Z")
> [@Saintly\_Loser](#): > > More seriously, I’m not sure that the existence of Greek classical philosophy refutes the proposition that Christianity was really the first religion (in the West) to espouse a universal morality and the brotherhood of man. You didn’t say it was the first religion (which was wrong), you said “those things (“don’t kill people or take their shit”)didn’t really enter the human consciousness until Christianity came along” > [@](#): > > I’m not sure the Hellenes were any less tribal than anyone else back then. I think the existence of Judeo- and Indo-Hellenism give the lie to that. Clearly they thought their philosophy was universally applicable, or why would they spread it to other people? Plus, if you read the actual ophilosophers, more than once you come across the idea of a _universal ethic_ - it was, in fact, the Great Project of most branches of Hellenistic philosophy. > [@](#): > > Certainly Christians have failed, all too often, on what their own faith teaches them, and will do so again and again in the future, but that doesn’t mean that Christianity didn’t introduce some radical new ideas into our consciousness. Such as? ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/183 "2010-01-29T17:11:31Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Well I’ve found that for the most part atheists do not even understand what the role of religion is. Or how it plays a role in their own lives, or recognizing their own religious behavior. In short it is IMPOSSIBLE to live a life without religion. You can lie to yourself and say that you do, but there are always things you are religious about. Patriotism is a form of religion. Rabid adherence to an anti-religious stance is religious. Religion is about the forms and rituals that govern our cultural life. You can double-speak it to death if you want and claim that you’re not religious, but ultimately there will be some sort groupthink that will develop its own forms and rituals. By saying that religion is unecessary, or worse claiming that its the proper role of government to stop religious faith, you are merely replacing one set of forms and rituals for another. In America many atheists (Who don’t have the power to do so…yet) believe that religion should be diminished. THey side-step the freedom of religion clause by claiming that what they are advancing is not a religion. But it’s still a set of forms and rituals that define a culture. They disingenuously claim they are ‘pro-science’ but science is indifferent to your religious belief or (dishonestly claimed) lack thereof. Religion is what binds society together, whether it’s a belief in the state or a belief in God. At some point you exercise through common forms and rituals a belief and adherence to the importance of a higher power. If you do not, then there is no longer a society to speak of and it will break apart as there will no longer be any commonality between the people. I agree. When I use the word “religion” I mean water and oxygen. And no one can live without those! Therefore no one can live without religion, according to my own personal definition of the word. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/184 "2010-01-29T17:13:49Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Well I’ve found that for the most part atheists do not even understand what the role of religion is. Or how it plays a role in their own lives, or recognizing their own religious behavior. In short it is IMPOSSIBLE to live a life without religion. Bollocks. > [@](#): > > You can lie to yourself and say that you do, but there are always things you are religious about. Patriotism is a form of religion. Rabid adherence to an anti-religious stance is religious. Religion is about the forms and rituals that govern our cultural life. No it is not. Get a dictionary. > [@](#): > > You can double-speak it to death if you want and claim that you’re not religious, but ultimately there will be some sort groupthink that will develop its own forms and rituals. That’s not religon, that’s called culture. > [@](#): > > By saying that religion is unecessary, or worse claiming that its the proper role of government to stop religious faith, you are merely replacing one set of forms and rituals for another. Religion is unnecessary, but nobody is claiming the government should stop it. Especially not in the US. > [@](#): > > In America many atheists (Who don’t have the power to do so…yet) believe that religion should be diminished. The only way to diminish religion is to stop doing it. Everything else is trying to diminish the power of religion over other people, which is an obviously good thing to me. You probably don’t agree. > [@](#): > > THey side-step the freedom of religion clause by claiming that what they are advancing is not a religion. Atheism is not a religion. > [@](#): > > But it’s still a set of forms and rituals that define a culture. What are you talking about? > [@](#): > > They disingenuously claim they are ‘pro-science’ but science is indifferent to your religious belief or (dishonestly claimed) lack thereof. Yes science is (mostly) indifferent to religion. There are however plenty of religious people who feel that their religion should attack science when it happens to contradict some of their precious feelings. > [@](#): > > Religion is what binds society together, whether it’s a belief in the state or a belief in God. At some point you exercise through common forms and rituals a belief and adherence to the importance of a higher power. If you do not, then there is no longer a society to speak of and it will break apart as there will no longer be any commonality between the people. Again, that’s culture. You’ve reduced following a religion to the same level as being a fan of a particular football club. Fine. Now why is it important again? ---
**Author:** ![kevlaw](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kevlaw/32/2281_2.png) [@kevlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kevlaw)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/185 "2010-01-29T17:19:00Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ0iXQaD4IA&feature=related](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ0iXQaD4IA&feature=related) > > In this video he talks about how the Government should abolish faith schools and that it’s the proper role of Government schooling to deprogram kids who have been taught that they are religious by their parents. Again, you have to squint pretty hard to get “Government should abolish faith schools” from that video. He says that faith schools are wicked and it’s not fair that state money funds them. I missed the bit where he says the government should abolish them. You seem to have made up “proper role of Government schooling to deprogram kids” from whole cloth. He actually says > [@Dawkins](#): > > You can’t stop parents from doing anything like that [telling children “you are a catholic child, etc”] but … it’s the duty of the educational institutions not to reinforce that… [the child] learns that … these people believe this; these people believe that… Still think that’s identical to a fundamentalist? ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/186 "2010-01-29T17:29:31Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > I agree. When I use the word “religion” I mean water and oxygen. And no one can live without those! Therefore no one can live without religion, according to my own personal definition of the word. If this was a little too snarky, I’ll simply point out that the word religion means either the worship of God or related supernatural beings, (Bob is a very religious man) or the systems and rituals in place for worshipping said deities, (Christianity Judaism and Islam are commonly regarded as the great western religions). Religion is not the “forms and rituals which govern our cultural life.” That just isn’t what the word means, and I have to admit it really annoys me when people try to win debates by adopting an idiosyncratic meaning for a common word, and then argue as though everyone was using that idiosyncratic meaning as opposed to the common one. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/187 "2010-01-29T17:55:51Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > Bollocks. > > No it is not. Get a dictionary. We’ve had this argument before, I’ve supported it before. > [@](#): > > That’s not religon, that’s called culture. No it’s not. Culture is informal, religion is formal. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/188 "2010-01-29T17:57:18Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > If this was a little too snarky, I’ll simply point out that the word religion means either the worship of God or related supernatural beings, (Bob is a very religious man) or the systems and rituals in place for worshipping said deities, (Christianity Judaism and Islam are commonly regarded as the great western religions). Religion is not the “forms and rituals which govern our cultural life.” That just isn’t what the word means, and I have to admit it really annoys me when people try to win debates by adopting an idiosyncratic meaning for a common word, and then argue as though everyone was using that idiosyncratic meaning as opposed to the common one. Actually religion has a deeper meaning than that. It specifically means the rituals surrounding a ‘belief in a higher power’. The state is a higher power. Using your definition, atheistic religions such as Taoism and Buddhism would not be considered religions. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/189 "2010-01-29T17:58:23Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > We’ve had this argument before, I’ve supported it before. > > No it’s not. Culture is informal, religion is formal. So courts of law, the democratic election system, driver’s licenses, choreographed dancing and the presentation of the nobel price are all religions? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/190 "2010-01-29T17:59:21Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > So courts of law, the democratic election system, driver’s licenses, choreographed dancing and the presentation of the nobel price are all religions? I believe that’s how the term was used in ancient Rome actually. And none of those things would be religions. They would be forms and rituals. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/191 "2010-01-29T18:03:25Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I believe that’s how the term was used in ancient Rome actually. I note that it’s now 2000 years later and meaning of certain terms have changed. > [@](#): > > And none of those things would be religions. They would be forms and rituals. **formal** forms and rituals. Which you claimed were religions (or religious, it’s not very clear to me what you’re saying). ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/192 "2010-01-29T18:09:24Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > I note that it’s now 2000 years later and meaning of certain terms have changed. Depends on which faction you are fundamentalizing for. > [@](#): > > **formal** forms and rituals. Which you claimed were religions (or religious, it’s not very clear to me what you’re saying). No, I didn’t claim that. What I claimed was that the SET of formalized forms and rituals constitute a religion. A court proceeding is no more ‘A’ religion than ‘A’ church service. It is a part of a larger set of forms and rituals of the civic religion. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/193 "2010-01-29T18:15:56Z")
Thank you ever so much, **mswas** , for showing us that it is not just the strident ignorance of Fundamentalists that atheists need to combat-it seems there are some “moderate Christians” that are just as stridently ignorant. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/194 "2010-01-29T18:16:44Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Depends on which faction you are fundamentalizing for. Oh come on. The meaning of words change all the time. I really don’t think you’d be able to find that many people TODAY who would define “religion/religous” as just a “formal ritual” or the other way around. > [@](#): > > No, I didn’t claim that. What I claimed was that the SET of formalized forms and rituals constitute a religion. A court proceeding is no more ‘A’ religion than ‘A’ church service. It is a part of a larger set of forms and rituals of the civic religion. So what you’re saying is that beliefs are not part of religion and that religions are a set of formalized behaviours, while at the same time claiming (I think) that things like courts of law etc are not (part of) religion/religous AND that nobody can live without religion since ALL forms of formal behaviours are religious. It doesn’t make any sense. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/195 "2010-01-29T18:18:57Z")
The fundamental aspect of the atheist dogma is that atheism is value neutral, that this somehow supplies it some kind of authenticity that religion lacks. But the reality is that it’s an anti-narrative. You cannot have atheism without theism. You can have a lack of belief in God, but the ‘FORM’ _atheist_ specifically defines one by what they DO NOT believe. So the belief in God is prior to the lack of belief in God. Atheists attempt to use this anti-narrative of value neutrality to claim that the world would be a better place without religion. That they are open-minded and realistic as opposed to the religious fundamentalists whose belief exists prior to the atheist’s anti-narrative. Without the religious, there is no such thing as atheism. But as Supernatural Religion has prefactored history up until this point, atheism as such can exists because it rests upon a foundation of a well-worn religious tradition upon which it can build its foundation of opposition. As such the anti-narrative attempts to supplant the other narratives to create itself as the dominant thought-form underlying the civic consciousness of the surrounding culture. But it does this in a subversive way, by denying equity between its own groupthink and the groupthink of others, trying to characterize itself as something wholly different due to its lack of unifying rituals. The only thing that unifies the atheist is the opposition to supernatural religious belief. As such there would be no unifying cultural aspects to keep a society cohesive. Culture in and of itself is not a passive, but an active entity. Culture is passed on intentionally by people, and as such the very act of passing on this culture builds up the language of tradition, and takes on religious forms and ceremonies. Without some kind of standardization of ritual, a society cannot continue to exist as a cohesive unit. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/196 "2010-01-29T18:23:22Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > Oh come on. The meaning of words change all the time. Yes, an an honest person would recognize that there is a very different view of how that word should be used between theists and atheists. Theists do not buy into the canard of value neutrality that atheists attempt to peddle. > [@](#): > > I really don’t think you’d be able to find that many people TODAY who would define “religion/religous” as just a “formal ritual” or the other way around. The word, ‘just’, is often over-used. The way to come to the definition of the word is to distill the common characteristics of all of the subcategories the super-category describes. There are merely two characteristics that seem to fit with all religions. The belief in a higher power, and a shared set of forms and rituals. This is the only way that Buddhism and Christianity can both be considered a religion. By your definition, Buddhism is not a religion, because it does not believe in a supernatural God or Gods. > [@](#): > > **So what you’re saying is that beliefs are not part of religion** and that religions are a set of formalized behaviours, while at the same time claiming (I think) that things like courts of law etc are not (part of) religion/religous AND that nobody can live without religion since ALL forms of formal behaviours are religious. It doesn’t make any sense. I didn’t say anything like this. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/197 "2010-01-29T18:29:22Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > I know there’s no certainty in the universe. I’ve done a basic logic class ages ago. Probabilities can get small enough to disregard them. This is the reason nobody sane is a solipsist. > > I’m quite willing to discuss hypothetical gods and their ramifications in a thread that’s not about atheism in the real world and its interactions with existing popular religions and/or their fundamental exponents. I am not a solipsist. I am quite certain regarding the absence of a woman in this room, a beer in my hand and chocolate in my desk. (I have, through a series of simple investigations, reduced the probability to near nil). I agree that for questions where certainty is more elusive, the probability of a thing can still be reduced to near nil. I do not think that is the case with the existence of a supernatural god (not an Abrahamic God, per se). I’ve ignored it as a silly throw-away comment until now, but analogies to the Easter Bunny, Santa and Pink Unicorn fall short. Beside the fact that we know roughly when and by whom those ideas were created\*, the removal of these concepts does not create the same dilemma as does the removal of the concept of a god(s) - namely, who, how, why, from whence? Some of these questions are the sole province of philosophy - science cannot and should not be expected to answer them. It might be that god is not the answer to these questions but that has nothing to do with the fact that Santa, the Easter Bunny and unicorns do not exist. I am fine ending this hijack (a result of _someone_ not understanding a very clear initial post that could have stood on its own). Just let it be said that there are people Der Trihs being one, who feel they can “know” that a god doesn’t exist. Thought they might be right about the existence of god, they are quite mistaken about their knowledge. \*Don’t say we know roughly when and by whom the idea of a god was created by referring to various religious myths; remember, I am not necessarily referring to any conventional existing god-mythology. I am referring to the god concept. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/198 "2010-01-29T18:32:44Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > The fundamental aspect of the atheist dogma is that atheism is value neutral, that this somehow supplies it some kind of authenticity that religion lacks. It doesn’t claim to be more than it can demonstrate. If that’s what you mean. > [@](#): > > But the reality is that it’s an anti-narrative. You cannot have atheism without theism. You can, but there would be no point in any kind of “atheism as an active belief system” without theism. Without theism, we’d all be atheists. And what the hell is an “anti-narrative”? > [@](#): > > You can have a lack of belief in God, but the ‘FORM’ _atheist_ specifically defines one by what they DO NOT believe. I’m quite sure that you know that the TERM atheist was coined by the believers so that they could take this line of argument. > [@](#): > > So the belief in God is prior to the lack of belief in God. Atheists attempt to use this anti-narrative of value neutrality to claim that the world would be a better place without religion. That they are open-minded and realistic as opposed to the religious fundamentalists whose belief exists prior to the atheist’s anti-narrative. Without the religious, there is no such thing as atheism. But as Supernatural Religion has prefactored history up until this point, atheism as such can exists because it rests upon a foundation of a well-worn religious tradition upon which it can build its foundation of opposition. As such the anti-narrative attempts to supplant the other narratives to create itself as the dominant thought-form underlying the civic consciousness of the surrounding culture. The history of science could be written using the exact same forms as you did, and it would still not mean that Plato had better scientific theories than Newton just because he was born earlier. > [@](#): > > But it does this in a subversive way, by denying equity between its own groupthink and the groupthink of others, trying to characterize itself as something wholly different due to its lack of unifying rituals. The only thing that unifies the atheist is the opposition to supernatural religious belief. The only thing that atheists feel any need to oppose as a group is the ridiculous influence of religion. Why is that a bad thing? Would you feel better if all atheists would unite to form a new Randian state? > [@](#): > > As such there would be no unifying cultural aspects to keep a society cohesive. Culture in and of itself is not a passive, but an active entity. Culture is passed on intentionally by people, and as such the very act of passing on this culture builds up the language of tradition, and takes on religious forms and ceremonies. Without some kind of standardization of ritual, a society cannot continue to exist as a cohesive unit. Religion is (or can be) part of culture. Culture is not religion. Religion is not all of culture. People without religion can still live in reasonable harmony and have plenty of shared culture. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/199 "2010-01-29T18:35:20Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Thank you ever so much, **mswas** , for showing us that it is not just the strident ignorance of Fundamentalists that atheists need to combat-it seems there are some “moderate Christians” that are just as stridently ignorant. An insult without a substantive reply? For the record, if the goal of your combat is to reduce ignorance by educating, then you’re doing a very poor job. If the goal of your combat is to condescendinling declare victory quite prematurely, well, steady as she goes. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/200 "2010-01-29T18:36:13Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > The fundamental aspect of the atheist dogma is that atheism is value neutral, that this somehow supplies it some kind of authenticity that religion lacks. But the reality is that it’s an anti-narrative. You cannot have atheism without theism. You can have a lack of belief in God, but the ‘FORM’ _atheist_ specifically defines one by what they DO NOT believe. So the belief in God is prior to the lack of belief in God. Atheists attempt to use this anti-narrative of value neutrality to claim that the world would be a better place without religion. That they are open-minded and realistic as opposed to the religious fundamentalists whose belief exists prior to the atheist’s anti-narrative. Without the religious, there is no such thing as atheism. But as Supernatural Religion has prefactored history up until this point, atheism as such can exists because it rests upon a foundation of a well-worn religious tradition upon which it can build its foundation of opposition. As such the anti-narrative attempts to supplant the other narratives to create itself as the dominant thought-form underlying the civic consciousness of the surrounding culture. But it does this in a subversive way, by denying equity between its own groupthink and the groupthink of others, trying to characterize itself as something wholly different due to its lack of unifying rituals. The only thing that unifies the atheist is the opposition to supernatural religious belief. As such there would be no unifying cultural aspects to keep a society cohesive. Culture in and of itself is not a passive, but an active entity. Culture is passed on intentionally by people, and as such the very act of passing on this culture builds up the language of tradition, and takes on religious forms and ceremonies. Without some kind of standardization of ritual, a society cannot continue to exist as a cohesive unit. Road apples. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678.md?page=11)