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.
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.
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.
It is a narrative that exists for the sole purpose of opposing another narrative.
And atheists chose to adopt and own it. Well, you own it now.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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?
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”.
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.
