# 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:** 11
**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, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/201 "2010-01-29T18:36:49Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > 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. I don’t know enough about Taoism and Buddhism to comment on them confidently, but my understanding is that there are a lot of supernatural beliefs in both as popularly practiced. In their more sophisticated forms, they seem more of an ethical system mixed with meditative excercises than a religion. I don’t think anyone worships the state. It’s only a higher power in that we have to follow the laws. In a free society the state is a useful tool. In an unfree society, the state is something you’re stuck with, and most people hate it. ---
**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, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/202 "2010-01-29T18:39:39Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > 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. Atheism per se is value neutral. Just the same as the existence of gods per se is value neutral. Religion tends to stack all kinds of “values” and “moral guidelines” on top of that. > [@](#): > > 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. I must say I’m in doubt over whether Buddhism can be called a religion. Which higher power do Buddhists believe in? Your argument makes some kind of sense if you define religion as a set of forms and rituals + some set of shared “higher _values_” - like equality or whatever. But that’s not the common definition of religion. At least not in the west. Buddists may disagree. ---
**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, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/203 "2010-01-29T18:39:57Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > It doesn’t claim to be more than it can demonstrate. If that’s what you mean. > > 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”? It is a narrative that exists for the sole purpose of opposing another narrative. > [@](#): > > 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. And atheists chose to adopt and own it. Well, you own it now. > [@](#): > > 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. Except that this is completely irrelevant to the discussion and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of both language and science in order to make such a silly fallacious comparison. > [@](#): > > 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? Again, you are not opposing the ‘ridiculous influence of religion’ that’s more value-neutral dogmatic nonsense. What you are doing is trying to label particular categories of belief as religious so that you can stand outside of that category of belief. The problem with that is that until you offer something superior, you have an inferior product. And when you offer something superior, then it will be religious in all but name. Humanity is a social creature, without social mechanisms that are actively pursued and inculcated, society cannot exist. > [@](#): > > 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. Religion is intrinsic to culture. I never said culture is religion. But you cannot have a culture without religion. I think the South Park atheist holy wars episode really hit the nail on the head with this one. If it comes to that, my money is on the otters. ---
**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, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/204 "2010-01-29T18:41:45Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > I don’t know enough about Taoism and Buddhism to comment on them confidently, but my understanding is that there are a lot of supernatural beliefs in both as popularly practiced. In their more sophisticated forms, they seem more of an ethical system mixed with meditative excercises than a religion. Again, you are defining religion in a way that it’s not used in order to suit your own view. Pretty much everyone considers Taoism and Buddhism to be religions. Now you are setting up criteria to eliminate them from the category so that your own myopic definition can be the accepted one. > [@](#): > > I don’t think anyone worships the state. It’s only a higher power in that we have to follow the laws. In a free society the state is a useful tool. In an unfree society, the state is something you’re stuck with, and most people hate it. Many people worship the state, Jingoism is a very popular past-time. Following its laws, paying taxes, voting, are all rituals of obeisance. Whether or not a society is free is really a matter of opinion. Ask young black men serving time for Marijuana distribution how free they feel in America. ---
**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, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/205 "2010-01-29T18:43:46Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Road apples. comments like this certainly are a strong argument against the existence of god ---
**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, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/206 "2010-01-29T18:44:05Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > 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. That’s how \*\*Czarcasm \*\*operates. All of us can be prone to such outbursts from time to time. I am certainly guilty of this quite often. The difference though, is that I don’t really recall much in the way of substantive argument from him, just mostly insults and arguments by assertion. ---
**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, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/207 "2010-01-29T18:45:25Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > comments like this certainly are a strong argument against the existence of god In all fairness, I’m not even arguing for the existence of God. I am merely arguing that atheism isn’t a value-neutral belief system. That it has its own extremists, its own forms of intolerance, and its own inculcated cultural forms and rituals, its own methods for establishing in-group/out-group barriers and all of the other nasty characteristics people blame religion for. ---
**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, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/208 "2010-01-29T18:45:39Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Religion is intrinsic to culture. I never said culture is religion. But you cannot have a culture without religion. I think the South Park atheist holy wars episode really hit the nail on the head with this one. If it comes to that, my money is on the otters. As far as I can tell, you’re wrong. If I ever get caught in a war between “Dawkinists” and other atheists, I’ll take your argument more seriously. ---
**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, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/209 "2010-01-29T18:47:01Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > As far as I can tell, you’re wrong. If I ever get caught in a war between “Dawkinists” and other atheists, I’ll take your argument more seriously. _shrugs_ And you’ll continue to argue by assertion that atheism isn’t a religion against theists who see it as a competing religion. However you define religion, atheism is an ideological belief that attempts to propagate itself at the expense of other ideological beliefs and their ability to propagate themselves. ---
**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, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/210 "2010-01-29T18:47:19Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > In all fairness, I’m not even arguing for the existence of God. I am merely arguing that atheism isn’t a value-neutral belief system. That it has its own extremists, its own forms of intolerance, and its own inculcated cultural forms and rituals, its own methods for establishing in-group/out-group barriers and all of the other nasty characteristics people blame religion for. I get what you’re arguing and I agree with most of it. I was just making a joke. ---
**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, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/211 "2010-01-29T18:48:58Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > 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. Substantive replies to **mswas’** posts have been made in this and many other threads. No amount of education can help those who are willfully and deliberately ignorant. There is no victory to be claimed in efforts such as these-there is only a realization that it is time to step away from the tar pit. ---
**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, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/212 "2010-01-29T18:49:42Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Substantive replies to **mswas’** posts have been made in this and many other threads. No amount of education can help those who are willfully and deliberately ignorant. There is no victory to be claimed in efforts such as these-there is only a realization that it is time to step away from the tar pit. Right, they always assert that they won. I assert that they lost. 😉 ---
**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, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/213 "2010-01-29T18:49:49Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > As far as I can tell, you’re wrong. If I ever get caught in a war between “Dawkinists” and other atheists, I’ll take your argument more seriously. Argue with **Der Trihs** over whether you can “know” that no god exists. He says he does. Do you? If you do, argue with **Bith** or whichever atheist conceded that they couldn’t “know.” ---
**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, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/214 "2010-01-29T18:51:01Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Substantive replies to **mswas’** posts have been made in this and many other threads. No amount of education can help those who are willfully and deliberately ignorant. There is no victory to be claimed in efforts such as these-there is only a realization that it is time to step away from the tar pit. what is the substantive replies quotient that opens the door to insults in GD? ---
**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, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/215 "2010-01-29T18:52:22Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Right, they always assert that they won. I assert that they lost. 😉 and I say you can never know 🙂 ---
**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, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/216 "2010-01-29T18:52:31Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > I am fine ending this hijack There needs to be a code word for the argument regarding the level of certainty required to know something. Think of the time and electrons that would be saved, if every time the agnostic vs atheist debate flared up someone could say “sollipsi-gnosti-thist?” and everyone could simply agree that, outside of formal systems and the cogito, there is very little that we can know for certain but that we can believe things with a high degree of confidence and that while no particular god exists we can’t rule out hypothetical gods or mystical beings in general because we have all have had this argument before. Both parties would then say “Got it!” and agree to disagree on whether the word “atheist” implies “I have proof that there is no god” or “I am very confident that there is no god”. If the other guy says “WTF?” you can go over the whole theory of tripartite knowledge for them and then teach them the code word so they don’t need to have the same argument twice. If anyone can do it, atheist and agnostics should be able to. How about it guys? sollisi-gnosti-thist? ---
**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, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/217 "2010-01-29T18:53:25Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > _shrugs_ And you’ll continue to argue by assertion that atheism isn’t a religion against theists who see it as a competing religion. > > However you define religion, atheism is an ideological belief that attempts to propagate itself at the expense of other ideological beliefs and their ability to propagate themselves. An ideological belief is not necessarily a religion either. Atheism is a “religious” position only in that it is in opposition to any kind of theism. If you want to assert that atheists are not automatically free from dogmatic/group thinking and oppressive behaviour, then I’m sure that most people would agree with you - I would at least. This doesn’t make it a religion any more than football fans are automatically part of “football religions”. ---
**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, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/218 "2010-01-29T18:56:21Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Again, you are defining religion in a way that it’s not used in order to suit your own view. Pretty much everyone considers Taoism and Buddhism to be religions. Now you are setting up criteria to eliminate them from the category so that your own myopic definition can be the accepted one. My point was simply that Buddhism and Taoism contain a lot of supernatural elements as popularly practiced. > [@](#): > > Many people worship the state, Jingoism is a very popular past-time. Following its laws, paying taxes, voting, are all rituals of obeisance. Whether or not a society is free is really a matter of opinion. Ask young black men serving time for Marijuana distribution how free they feel in America. There is a state, people follow laws and vote, therefore atheism is wrong, therefore god exists. I am too myopic to follow this. ---
**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, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/219 "2010-01-29T18:58:18Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > An ideological belief is not necessarily a religion either. Atheism is a “religious” position only in that it is in opposition to any kind of theism. How I am using religion is around the forms and ceremonies that cohere around the belief. > [@](#): > > If you want to assert that atheists are not automatically free from dogmatic/group thinking and oppressive behaviour, then I’m sure that most people would agree with you - I would at least. This doesn’t make it a religion any more than football fans are automatically part of “football religions”. I think you’re missing the point entirely here. ---
**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, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678/220 "2010-01-29T18:58:19Z")
> [@kevlaw](#): > > There needs to be a code word for the argument regarding the level of certainty required to know something. Think of the time and electrons that would be saved, if every time the agnostic vs atheist debate flared up someone could say “sollipsi-gnosti-thist?” and everyone could simply agree that, outside of formal systems and the cogito, there is very little that we can know for certain but that we can believe things with a high degree of confidence and that while no particular god exists we can’t rule out hypothetical gods or mystical beings in general because we have all have had this argument before. > > Both parties would then say “Got it!” and agree to disagree on whether the word “atheist” implies “I have proof that there is no god” or “I am very confident that there is no god”. > > If the other guy says “WTF?” you can go over the whole theory of tripartite knowledge for them and then teach them the code word so they don’t need to have the same argument twice. > > If anyone can do it, atheist and agnostics should be able to. How about it guys? > > sollisi-gnosti-thist? Why not have another name for the “I have proof” crowd. Something other than atheist. Or maybe just a modifier. Hmmm. What would a good modifier be? Something that together with the word “atheist” would mean “strict adherence to the denial of (not disbelief in) god.” It’s on the tip of my tongue. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-fundamentalists-the-atheists-best-friend/526678.md?page=12)