# Atheists are NOT just another religion **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 7, 2005, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491 "2005-12-07T12:36:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/181 "2005-12-09T03:40:30Z")
> [@capybara](#): > > Ok, now I’m confused as to my, um, “religious beliefs.” > This is primarilly directed to FinnAgain and Diogenes (or anyone else who is on the same page)-- a philosophical moment. > I agree, epistemologically, that the existence or non-existence of a God is unknowable. So I suppose I’m agnostic in that sense of the word. > > I also agree that, epistemologically, it is impossible to know whether there is indeed an 800 pound invisible ostrich that reads classical Greek, bedecked with colorful sequins and beating an inaudible golden tambourine, sitting next to me on my futon-couch. Likewise (does this make me a skeptic?) I don’t think that the existence or non-existence of ANYTHING can be known beyond a doubt. In epistemological terms, of course. > > However, I don’t reckon the existences of those two options are of equal probability --Occam’s Razor, etc. I don’t think that a God (any of them, although Dionysis sounds like fun at a party) or the ostrich is necessary in this great big lovely awe-inspiring closed system of ours. And I’ve thought about it quite a bit. I can’t KNOW that a God doesn’t exist, but I really don’t think one does. Does this make me an. . . agnostic with atheistic leanings? An atheist with insufficient faith? What’s an agnostic who dopesn’t believe the unknowability of a God makes his probablity of existence equal to its probability of not-existing, like any other unknowable object? Why does God get the special treatment? He gets no special treatment from me. I acknowledge that God cannot be known with a certainty not to exist but I acknowledge it only in the most sterile, technical sense. I don’t think that my qualification is really any more meaningful, in practical terms, than acknowledging that I can’t know with a certainty that elves don’t exist.` You’re an atheist, by the way. Technically, you could probably be desribed as a “weak” atheist but (like a lot of us around here) you’re operating from a conditional assumption that God does not exist. You don’t actually have to think that the existence of God is remotely likely or plausible in order to avoid being a hard atheist. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/182 "2005-12-09T03:57:26Z")
> [@](#): > > That’s kind of circular, but looks like a third vote for biological cause. Are you saying that emotions _don’t_ have a biological cause? > [@](#): > > Ok, like Diogenes you seem to be saying that their value is how you feel about them. Do they have any intrinsic value beyond that of say, an ant? Didn’t I just say that? All value is relative. A bag of diamonds is worth less than a ham sandwich to a starving man. No, no human has any more value than any other animal (or plant, or rock) than what he and/or other humans assign him. > [@](#): > > You’re responding to an argument I haven’t made. I haven’t said you didn’t feel these things. I asked how you rationalize them. Well, then I’m not sure what you mean by “rationalize.” Do feelings need to be rationalized? I feel good when I’m around my friends. I feel bad when there gone. When they’re gone forever, I feel really, really bad. What about that needs to be rationalized? As a theist, how do you rationalize them? How does belief in a diety necessarily alter how we feel about loss? I understand the difference in how we _cope_ with loss, but the basic human, emotional reaction is going to be pretty much the same. Is that what you’re asking? How we deal with grief? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/183 "2005-12-09T04:18:00Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Didn’t I just say that? All value is relative. A bag of diamonds is worth less than a ham sandwich to a starving man. No, no human has any more value than any other animal (or plant, or rock) than what he and/or other humans assign him. Ok. So let’s say I am an atheist. I find a person to be extremely unpleasant. Worse, I define his value as negative to to his actions and attitude. Given the opportunity and the assurance of getting away with it, why should I not kill this person? To go even further, let’s suppose that I derive pleasure in killing other human beings. In fact I value this pleasure more than I value them. Should I not then rightfully indulge this pleasure? > [@](#): > > Well, then I’m not sure what you mean by “rationalize.” Do feelings need to be rationalized? I feel good when I’m around my friends. I feel bad when there gone. When they’re gone forever, I feel really, really bad. What about that needs to be rationalized? Maybe it doesn’t. I’m not saying it **has** to be, just that for me, it does. For example, if I feel that I have friends because I am social animal and my genes tell me that I’m safer and belong in a group, and that I’ve developed this empathy to them which is a mutually protective adaptation, and that the sense of loss I feel is simply emotional pain that my genes impose on my me through instinctive self-interest… than it’s just a bunch of mechanical bullshit. My emotional pain is no different or more meaningful than say when my legs ache after a long jog. It’s just biological bullshit, and in fact, I am nothing more than a meatpuppet dancing around on the strings of biology and instincts imagining he is a free and sovereign entity. If I lost a friend and felt grief, I would conclude that the emotional pain is really no more significant than say, a sore knee. Simply something to be dealt with and not taken seriously. Another stupid biological consequence, no more useful in the modern world than my vermiform appendix. > [@](#): > > As a theist, how do you rationalize them? How does belief in a diety necessarily alter how we feel about loss? It gives it meaning. > [@](#): > > I understand the difference in how we _cope_ with loss, but the basic human, emotional reaction is going to be pretty much the same. Is that what you’re asking? How we deal with grief? Not really. Not whether you feel it, or how you deal with it, but why it matters. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/184 "2005-12-09T04:20:07Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > **Diogenes the Cynic** > > To play Plato to your Socrates, "But teacher, surely that can’t be it! What you say suggests that atheism is a totally selfish system in which the worth of others is measured only by your feelings towards them. That’s not what I said at all. What I said was that the specific emotional response of _grieving_ is completely selfish. Grieving a loss has nothing to do with measuring the worth of the _living_. Empathy, selflessness and altruism are totally unrelated to grief (except for how they relate to empathy for other bereaved people) but they are equally biological. Animals can be altruistic and self-sacrificing and they don’t believe in gods. > [@](#): > > What if your emotional responses are different? If you hate somebody, wouldn’t it be ok to kill them, because it would make you happy if they were gone? I know you can’t mean this. People must have an intrinsic worth of their own regardless of your feelings towards them, don’t they?" This has already been asked and answered. You are extropolating a false conclusion from what I said. I never said or implied that I measured the worth of other people in selfish terms…I measure _losing_ them in selfish terms. Surely, you can understand the difference. > [@](#): > > Ok. So is pooping. Why is empathy particularly noteworthy? I have no idea what you mean by “noteworthy.” I didn’t say that empathy is noteworthy, I just said that atheists feel it. Suggesting that atheists don’t feel emotions like empathy and grief is just as silly as saying we can’t feel lust or fall in love. It’s all just brain chemistry. > [@](#): > > It makes sense if you see how I defined my terms. To repeat, an atheist is someone who espouses the viewpoint that there is no God. An agnostic doubts or is skeptical. The good ole dictionary seems to back up my usage. > > I consider atheism as I’ve defined it, a religion because it makes a positive statement about God. “No. There is no God.” > > Really though, that statement can’t be made conclusively. It is unknowable in this life, and maybe forever. Agnosticism understands this and simply doubts, is skeptical, or concludes that the nonexistance of God is the preferred explanation re: occam’s razor. A **leap** of faith is required to go beyond this and make the positive statement that there is no God. That’s why I consider atheism a religion and agnosticism not. > > I suspect that much of our disagreement stems from terminology used. I have defined my terms and the dictionary backs me up. These are tendentious and inaccurate definitions and you know it. They are _not_ how we, who call ourselves atheists and agnostics use the terms and they are not descriptive of how we define ourselves. You are trying to manipulate the terms of the debate through the use of selective semantics. The number of self-identified “atheists” who positively assert that God cannot exist is a minority at best. If it is only this particular group that you have a problem with then please say so. attempting to define the terms in such a way that you can paint every self-identified atheist into this camp is really a fruitless way to pursue these issues. We are not going to _become_ those kinds of atheists just because you say that’s what the word means and we’re not going to stop _calling_ ourselves atheists either. Narrowing the definition of the word does not alter the actual philosophical positions of the people that you’re talking to. > [@](#): > > Ok, then I’m an agnostic who beleives in the existance of God. As a matter of fact, under those terms. that’s exactly what you are. Do you think that’s supposed to strike us as contradictory? > [@](#): > > Atheism is just an opinion, and unprovable. It doesn’t carry any more weight than anybody else’s. Atheism is the _absence_ of an opinion. It doesn;t have to “proved” because it makes no positive assertions. > [@](#): > > Atheists would share the common beleifset that God does not exist and that all other religions are therefore wrong. They are positive about this stance in spite of the fact that it is unproveable. They may evangelize or feel they have a superior perspective because of it. This is baloney. Do you think that the atheists around here don’t actually know what they believe? Are all of us who call ourselves atheists just lying when we say that we say we are _not_ positive? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/185 "2005-12-09T04:43:06Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I have no idea what you mean by “noteworthy.” I didn’t say that empathy is noteworthy, I just said that atheists feel it. Suggesting that atheists don’t feel emotions like empathy and grief is just as silly as saying we can’t feel lust or fall in love. It’s all just brain chemistry. Read that Wolf essay I linked to if you haven’t yet. > [@](#): > > These are tendentious and inaccurate definitions and you know it. Until the very moment that I heard it asserted otherwise, that was really the only definition I had considered. > [@](#): > > They are _not_ how we, who call ourselves atheists and agnostics use the terms and they are not descriptive of how we define ourselves. You are trying to manipulate the terms of the debate through the use of selective semantics. The number of self-identified “atheists” who positively assert that God cannot exist is a minority at best. It’s how it looks to me like the terms are defined. When speaking to you in the future I will make sure I consider how you define yourself in your own terms now that I understand them, though to me, it seems unnecessarily confusing. You surely have the right to define yourself as you like. > [@](#): > > If it is only this particular group that you have a problem with then please say so. Them and evangelicals of every stripe. > [@](#): > > attempting to define the terms in such a way that you can paint every self-identified atheist into this camp is really a fruitless way to pursue these issues. We are not going to _become_ those kinds of atheists just because you say that’s what the word means and we’re not going to stop _calling_ ourselves atheists either. Narrowing the definition of the word does not alter the actual philosophical positions of the people that you’re talking to. Well, ok. Got it. I defined my terms. You defined yours. Now we understand each other. I didn’t before. > [@](#): > > As a matter of fact, under those terms. that’s exactly what you are. Do you think that’s supposed to strike us as contradictory? Well no. Seeing the terms defined, I identified myself in those terms so you could understand where I came from and we could communicate efficiently. The terms themselves are meaningless. > [@](#): > > Atheism is the _absence_ of an opinion. It doesn;t have to “proved” because it makes no positive assertions. Ok. You do understand my confusion, don’t you? I mean, I go here: > **[Definition of atheist | Dictionary.com](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheist)** > > Definition of atheist from Dictionary.com, the world’s leading online source for English definitions, pronunciations, word origins, idioms, Word of the Day, and more. and > **[Definition of agnostic | Dictionary.com](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/agnostic)** > > Definition of agnostic from Dictionary.com, the world’s leading online source for English definitions, pronunciations, word origins, idioms, Word of the Day, and more. and this is how I understood the words, and how I’ve used them, and now I understand that you use them differently. Again, you’re free to define yourself as you like, but it seems to me you have to be willing to accept some confusion if you’re going to have special definitions of already defined words. General usage and the dictionary seem to bear me out with the “atheists-deny, agnostics don’t know” definition. It seems to me a little disingenuous to get testy about it and act like I’m being obstinate when you’ve altered the meanings of words and it creates confusion. > [@](#): > > This is baloney. Do you think that the atheists around here don’t actually know what they believe? Are all of us who call ourselves atheists just lying when we say that we say we are _not_ positive? Well, I guess it is baloney when you’ve redefined the terms so that I should be reading “agnostic” when you say “atheist.” ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/186 "2005-12-09T04:43:08Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Ok. So let’s say I am an atheist. I find a person to be extremely unpleasant. Worse, I define his value as negative to to his actions and attitude. Given the opportunity and the assurance of getting away with it, why should I not kill this person? This question is a _non-sequitur_ in relation to your questions about emotional responses to grief and I think you have to be more specific about what it is you want to know. Are you asking why, in selfish terms, atheists themselves do not kill people or are you asking why atheists think _other_ people should not kill people. If you’re asking the former, the specter of prison rape is a pretty good deterrant as are the same biological checks on pointless violence that everybody else has. A healthy human brain is distressed by the suffering of others, by chaos and instability and by the thought of killing without reason. Human beings have evolved as social animals. We are evolved to survive as _communities_ not as individuals and are brain chemistry has been selected for emotional responses which tend to support the health of the community and react adversely to situations which are destabalizing to that community. If you are asking why atheists wouldn’t want other people to kill people it’s really the same batch of answers- a brain chemistry which is evolved to presereve the stability of the comminity and to feel distress, abhorence and anger at factors which tend to destabalize that community. here is also the purely selfish imperatives like the will to survive and to protect our families. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/187 "2005-12-09T04:47:38Z")
DTC: Ok. Brain chemistry tells you not to do these things. Why is that enough? Being an intelligent and reasoning person you have a brain which allows you to overrule instinct to a certain degree depending on your willpower and the strength of the instinct. If you clearly reason that is advantageous to kill this person in spite of your instincts against it… than why not do it? You can reason beyond your instincts. They do not completely control you. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/188 "2005-12-09T04:50:16Z")
> [@](#): > > and certainly you would agree that a good abacus is better than a bad computer. I think you should leave Dell™ out of this. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/189 "2005-12-09T04:54:26Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Read that Wolf essay I linked to if you haven’t yet. What for? Why can’t you just clarify your question. You asked me why empathy is “noteworthy.” What do you mean by “noteworthy?” > [@](#): > > Until the very moment that I heard it asserted otherwise, that was really the only definition I had considered. > > It’s how it looks to me like the terms are defined. When speaking to you in the future I will make sure I consider how you define yourself in your own terms now that I understand them, though to me, it seems unnecessarily confusing. You surely have the right to define yourself as you like. > > Them and evangelicals of every stripe. > > Well, ok. Got it. I defined my terms. You defined yours. Now we understand each other. I didn’t before. > > Well no. Seeing the terms defined, I identified myself in those terms so you could understand where I came from and we could communicate efficiently. The terms themselves are meaningless. > > Ok. You do understand my confusion, don’t you? I mean, I go here: > > [Atheist Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheist) > > and > > [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=agnostic](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=agnostic) > > and this is how I understood the words, and how I’ve used them, and now I understand that you use them differently. > > Again, you’re free to define yourself as you like, but it seems to me you have to be willing to accept some confusion if you’re going to have special definitions of already defined words. General usage and the dictionary seem to bear me out with the “atheists-deny, agnostics don’t know” definition. > > It seems to me a little disingenuous to get testy about it and act like I’m being obstinate when you’ve altered the meanings of words and it creates confusion. > > Well, I guess it is baloney when you’ve redefined the terms so that I should be reading “agnostic” when you say “atheist.” Yoiur definitions are wrong. I don’t care how many on line dictionaries you link to, they’re wrong. The way these terms are used in serious or formal academic discussions is just as I presented them. Continually linking to sloppy, more popular definitions is roughly the equivalent of claiming that “evolution is just a THEORY.” If you are new to these kinds of debates, that’s fine, but you are making yourself look like a naif with your semantic protestations and you aren’t really furthering the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/190 "2005-12-09T04:55:41Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Ok. So let’s say I am an atheist. I find a person to be extremely unpleasant. Worse, I define his value as negative to to his actions and attitude. Given the opportunity and the assurance of getting away with it, why should I not kill this person? > > To go even further, let’s suppose that I derive pleasure in killing other human beings. In fact I value this pleasure more than I value them. Should I not then rightfully indulge this pleasure? I’m always amazed to hear this question from theists. What you’re saying is that, without God to tell you right from wrong, you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference on your own? That the only thing preventing you from killing and stealing is fear of divine retribution? I don’t buy that. You seem to be acting like empathy is somehow dependent on religion. It’s not. If I see another human being in pain, I feel bad, too, because I know what it feels like to hurt. If I cause another human pain, I feel guilt for being the causing feelings that I know are unpleasant. I don’t need God to tell me that it’s wrong, I know that on my own. How do I know it? Could be biology, could be sociology. Who cares? What’s clear is that co-operation leads to prosperity for everyone. A society in which people slaughter eachother willy-nilly just means everyone’s dead. And since there’s nothing going on after this life, it’s in my best interest to foster a society in which I live as long and as happily as possible. This means, among other things, not commiting murder, if for no other reason than if I’m a threat to other human beings, other human beings are going to act to remove that threat. That’s not the primary reason I don’t commit murder: my own, internally derived moral sense tells me not to do it. But it is a rational justification to not attempt to overcome that internal moral sense. > [@](#): > > Maybe it doesn’t. I’m not saying it **has** to be, just that for me, it does. > > For example, if I feel that I have friends because I am social animal and my genes tell me that I’m safer and belong in a group, and that I’ve developed this empathy to them which is a mutually protective adaptation, and that the sense of loss I feel is simply emotional pain that my genes impose on my me through instinctive self-interest… than it’s just a bunch of mechanical bullshit. As opposed to what? A bunch of spiritual bullshit? > [@](#): > > My emotional pain is no different or more meaningful than say when my legs ache after a long jog. It’s just biological bullshit, and in fact, I am nothing more than a meatpuppet dancing around on the strings of biology and instincts imagining he is a free and sovereign entity. Well, even if there is a God, you’re still just as much a puppet of biology and instinct, except in your case, there’s a second puppet master: God. I don’t see how you can be free if your exsistence is bounded by the expections of an all-powerful diety. You can never be more than whatever he wants you to be. As an atheist, I’m free to find whatever meaning I feel like in my life. The concept of God has always struck me as terribly limiting. If there is no God, if there is no Grand Purpose, than any purpose we can conceive of for ourselves is valid. > [@](#): > > If I lost a friend and felt grief, I would conclude that the emotional pain is really no more significant than say, a sore knee. Simply something to be dealt with and not taken seriously. Another stupid biological consequence, no more useful in the modern world than my vermiform appendix. Well, I agree in as much as I don’t see emotional pain as more meaningful, in a philosophical sense, than physical pain, but all pain is not equal. A sore knee does not hurt as much as a broken leg. And pain of any kind is not without it’s purpose: it shows us what is dangerous, what is important, how to be careful, and when to risk. > [@](#): > > It gives it meaning. See, I would find that intolerable. I can cope with grief or tragedy as the random outcome of natural forces. But the idea that my pain was, in some way, orchestrated by a thinking being for it’s own purposes… that would be unbearable. I would far rather there be no God at all, than there be a God that would allow the world we live in. > [@](#): > > Not really. Not whether you feel it, or how you deal with it, but why it matters. It matters because I say it matters. Is that really that much less valid than “It matter because God says it matters?” ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/191 "2005-12-09T05:05:21Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > DTC: > > Ok. Brain chemistry tells you not to do these things. Why is that enough? Enough for what? > [@](#): > > Being an intelligent and reasoning person you have a brain which allows you to overrule instinct to a certain degree depending on your willpower and the strength of the instinct. > > If you clearly reason that is advantageous to kill this person in spite of your instincts against it… than why not do it? If I should ever reason that it is clearly advantageous to me _and to my community_ to kill somebody. I WILL kill them. No worries, mate. I have very little expectation that such an eventuality would ever arise, though. > [@](#): > > You can reason beyond your instincts. They do not completely control you. Reason IS an instinct. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/192 "2005-12-09T05:10:49Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > What for? Why can’t you just clarify your question. You asked me why empathy is “noteworthy.” What do you mean by “noteworthy?” Ok. If the feeling of loss you have for a friend is biologically equivalent to the feeling you have for the need to poop, that is, they are simply biological imperatives, than why should I, you, or anybody else care about the biological nuicsance that is grief? Why is it meaningful. > [@](#): > > Yoiur definitions are wrong. I don’t care how many on line dictionaries you link to, they’re wrong. Semantics aren’t particularly important to the discussion so long as we finally understand each other, but I do have a problem with your simple assertion that I am wrong. If we’re going to talk in terms of serious or formal academic discussions than you should know that a simple assertion is an inferior argument. You may be right in your assertion, but it’s not backed up. Mine is. I will stick with my assertion which has the advantaged of being cited appropriately by an impartial athority. That’s better than your plain old assertion. Yes? > [@](#): > > The way these terms are used in serious or formal academic discussions is just as I presented them. Continually linking to sloppy, more popular definitions is roughly the equivalent of claiming that “evolution is just a THEORY.” In point of fact, evolution is “just a theory.” It is a very well-documented and thought theory with lots of evidence and utility and it’s better than any other competing theory, but it’s still “just a theory.” And again, you’re telling me that my head is up my ass with my definitions and the athoritative cites I’ve provided is all well and good, but I would appreciate it if you could show me definitively. Than I can accept that it is **my** head that is up **my** ass and not yours. > [@](#): > > If you are new to these kinds of debates, that’s fine, but you are making yourself look like a naif with your semantic protestations and you aren’t really furthering the discussion. It’s certainly frustrating and I am new to these discussions. I wonder if it as you say, and your definitions are generally accepted throughought academia. I am new to these discussions but it seems like agnostic and atheist are defined with perfect utility by Websters and have been for quite some time, and I wonder if maybe just some sloppy semantics have become generally accepted on this board. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/193 "2005-12-09T05:21:14Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I’m always amazed to hear this question from theists. What you’re saying is that, without God to tell you right from wrong, you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference on your own? That the only thing preventing you from killing and stealing is fear of divine retribution? This argument in particular has always scared me… what does it say about those theists who use it, and who one day might decide that they no longer believe in God? ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/194 "2005-12-09T05:27:39Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Atheism is just an opinion, and unprovable. It doesn’t carry any more weight than anybody else’s. It might be an opinion, but it doesn’t need to be proven. I don’t make the claim to not believe in god unless someone makes the claim that there is a god. I don’t go around making claims that there is no magical sky pixie because no one has said there is one. It is always up to the person making the claim that something exists to prove it. Everyone is an atheist until this is done. People aren’t born believing in Christ. Someone has to tell them about him. People aren’t born knowing what is in the bible. Someone has to read it to them, or teach them to read it themselves. I can’t deny a god exists until someone makes the claim he does. I don’t need to provide proof he doesn’t exist, you need to provide proof he does. It’s your claim, I’m just reacting to it. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/195 "2005-12-09T05:37:27Z")
> [@](#): > > Well, if my innocuous opinion is inherently insulting to some, and they choose to take offense over such minor a quibble, than they are not people who’s opinions particularly matter to me. It’s not an offense, it’s exhasution at seeing the same dog and pony show over and over. I don’t even know if you know what you’re up to. But I know what the definitions you’re trying to use are for. You see, ultimately, it doesn’t matter what words we use to describe what as long as we are consistent. The problem is that the usage is never consistent, and the definitions you want to use are designed to maximize this confusion. Here’s the game: Theist: Do you believe in god? Me: Nope Theist: So you’re an atheist Me: Okay, whatever you say, whatever you want to call it man. Theist: You’re stupid. You can’t prove that there is no God. Me: Er, whhhaaaa??? And so on. It never seems to get old. It’s called equivocation, and it’s the oldest definitional trick in the book. At best, all I can do is sigh and point out that despite your claim about atheism meaning a positive belief that there is no God, you then turn around and don’t use your own definition in practice. > [@](#): > > It makes sense if you see how I defined my terms. To repeat, an atheist is someone who espouses the viewpoint that there is no God. An agnostic doubts or is skeptical. The good ole dictionary seems to back up my usage. It also seems to back up mine. So what? Obviously, the definitions are confused and bear a history of smears. But given what atheists say they are, and what a Catholic who seems to think that atheists don’t care about anyone or anything says they are, who should I trust? > [@](#): > > I consider atheism as I’ve defined it, a religion because it makes a positive statement about God. “No. There is no God.” As I argued, a simple opinion about a metaphysical question is not a religion. But even if you torture the word religion into fitting that, people end up playing the same game. You: Okay, so atheism, along with every other thing you might have to say about just about anything, it’s it’s own separate religion. You have 800 different religions and I have 799. Me: Okay, that’s nuts, but I’ll accept whatever you want. You: See, you’re so religious: why do you obsess so much over something you don’t believe… everything you do is part of your atheist religion… yadda yadda yadda… Me: But I’m not religious except maybe under your nutty definition. But that definition has been stretched so thin that you can’t possibly justify dumping in all that other stuff. Like with the use of the word atheist, you keep switching meanings on us mid-argument: using a more expansive and wider net to make the word apply to me, and then trying to attack me based on the very connotations you had to toss out to make it apply to me in the first place. > [@](#): > > Really though, that statement can’t be made conclusively. It is unknowable in this life, and maybe forever. I agree. > [@](#): > > Agnosticism understands this and simply doubts, is skeptical, or concludes that the nonexistance of God is the preferred explanation re: occam’s razor. That’s a misuse of te Razor, but whatever. > [@](#): > > A leap of faith is required to go beyond this and make the positive statement that there is no God. I guess, but I don’t know a single person who in the end really does fall or has ever fallen under this in the sense you mean it. > [@](#): > > That’s why I consider atheism a religion and agnosticism not. Okay, as youve defined it, there are almost no atheists, so I guess it isn’t a very popular religion. You certainly aren’t talking about the “atheists” of the OP. > [@](#): > > I suspect that much of our disagreement stems from terminology used. I have defined my terms and the dictionary backs me up. As I noted before, while you can make up whatever definitions you want, when you look at the them all as a whole, the terms don’t add up: they’re logically incoherent. Agnosticism is not a statement about belief, and belief is a binary issue, not a contiuum. > [@](#): > > You seem to be wearing your offensibility like armour, so maybe it’s best we don’t continue this discussion. I’m not particularly offended. Really, at this point it’s a little boring. But please understand: I’m not necessarily saying just “Scylla, you evil dickhead!” to try and end the discussion with a cheap shot at you. I’m trying to make you see what you are really saying to folks and why it’s just kind of low as a tactic. You know what, it sort of DOES hurt my feelings, especially when I do really try to go out of my way and call non-believers on bigoted or false generalizations they make about believers. Your response is basically call me a pussy for it bothering me. Well, sorry: it just is deeply insulting to imply that we might as well not care about anything or anything just because we don’t share your belief system. The fact that you don’t care whether or not it’s insulting is just sort of depressing. To you, it’s just another debating trick. > [@](#): > > In a disussion like this I can’t see what’s so terrible about asking about the rationale you use instead. No one I know uses a “rationale” and I highly doubt that you do either. “Souls” isn’t a rationale. It doesn’t explain anything, it doesn’t demonstrate “intrinsic worth” or anything that you’ve been claiming it does. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/196 "2005-12-09T05:40:39Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > …I wonder if maybe just some sloppy semantics have become generally accepted on this board. Whoa, brother. It’s one thing to rag on atheists, but you’ve stepped over the line with these anti-semantic remarks. :mad: ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/197 "2005-12-09T05:57:57Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Ok. If the feeling of loss you have for a friend is biologically equivalent to the feeling you have for the need to poop, that is, they are simply biological imperatives, than why should I, you, or anybody else care about the biological nuicsance that is grief? Why is it meaningful. “Biologically equivalent?” What the hell does that mean? They are both equally biological, I guess, but they are not experientially or subjectively “equivalent.” I also don’t know what you mean by “care about.” It seems redundant. If it is MY pain, then I “care” because it is painful and I care exactly to the _extent_ that it’s painful. Sometimes I care because I empathize with someone else’s pain, but I don’t expect my personal pain to matter or be “meaningful” to anyone but me. Objectively speaking, no pain is meaningful. > [@](#): > > Semantics aren’t particularly important to the discussion so long as we finally understand each other, but I do have a problem with your simple assertion that I am wrong. If we’re going to talk in terms of serious or formal academic discussions than you should know that a simple assertion is an inferior argument. > > You may be right in your assertion, but it’s not backed up. Mine is. I will stick with my assertion which has the advantaged of being cited appropriately by an impartial athority. That’s better than your plain old assertion. Yes? If I provide you with some cites for how the words are formally used in philosophy will you drop this pointless hijack? Let’s start with agnosticism. That term was coined by Thomas Huxley. Let’s see how he defined it. > [@](#): > > Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in vigorous application of a single principle. Positively the principle may be expressed as: in matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it can carry you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend the conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism. … The application of the principle results in the denial of, or the suspension of judgment concerning, a number of propositions respecting which our contemporary ecclesiastical “gnostics” profess entire certainty. > ( Thomas H. Huxley, _Agnosticism and Christianity_, 1894) The translation is that, as I have said repeatedly, agnosticism is purely an epistemological position. It does not mean “skeptical” or undecided. It is the position that the answer _cannot be known_, it is not a _per se_ opinion on the existence of God. One can very well be an agnostic and still be either an atheist or a theist. [Here](http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/p/overview.htm) is a page which discusses and provides links to a number of ways in which the the word is defined and used by philosophers and by theologians. Strong atheism is encompassed by the general definition but anyone who is not a theist is an atheist. The Greek roots of the word literally mean “without theism.” If you want to insist on defining atheism as referring only to strong atheists then you’re going to have to invent a different word for the rest of us (and you can’t say “agnostic.” That’s already taken). > [@](#): > > In point of fact, evolution is “just a theory.” It is a very well-documented and thought theory with lots of evidence and utility and it’s better than any other competing theory, but it’s still “just a theory.” Wow. Are you really **Scylla** or are you some “guest” that hacked his account? How could such a long time Doper not know the difference between how the word “theory” is used in science, and how it’s used informally? In science, there is no such thing as “just a theory.” If a hypothesis acquires the status of “theory,” that means you can take it to the bank. It has been confirmed as a reliable explanation for some sort of observed phenomena. It does not mean “unproven.” People who say that “evolution is just a theory” are doing so because they don’t know what a scientific theory actually is. > [@](#): > > It’s certainly frustrating and I am new to these discussions. I wonder if it as you say, and your definitions are generally accepted throughought academia. It is as I say. Take any Intro to Philosophy class. > [@](#): > > I am new to these discussions but it seems like agnostic and atheist are defined with perfect utility by Websters and have been for quite some time, and I wonder if maybe just some sloppy semantics have become generally accepted on this board. Nice try, but no. You’re just misinformed. ---
**Author:** ![Testy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c37758/32.png) [@Testy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Testy)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/198 "2005-12-09T08:22:07Z")
So, if I understand you correctly, the attempt to redefine atheism into some kind of religion by the theists is due to a fear of change and a desire to marginalize those who would make those changes. Would that be a good summary? Thanks Testy ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/199 "2005-12-09T09:33:03Z")
> [@Testy](#): > > So, if I understand you correctly, the attempt to redefine atheism into some kind of religion by the theists is due to a fear of change and a desire to marginalize those who would make those changes. Would that be a good summary? On one level, it’s a roundabout attempt to justify governmental support of religion by redefining secularism as a religion itself rather than the absence of religion. It an interesting ju-jitsu move on the First Amendment. Congress will make no law respecting the establisment of religion. Banning government-sanctioned expressions of religion is establishing “secularism”. “Secularism” is a religion, so this is forbidden. Our only recourse is to give all religions equal time. The government must publicly endorse both religion and secularism in the interest of fairness. (And yes, I know that “atheism” and “secularism” aren’t equivalent. However the same arguments are made about both – namely that the absence of religion is a religion itself.) Aside from political motives it’s also an effort to dismiss reason’s challenge to theism with “both belief systems rest on faith so we’ll just have to agree to disagree”. The problem with this argument is that different beliefs require different degrees of faith. I have faith that my senses present me with a reasonably accurate picture of the world around me – when I wake up in the morning I have faith that the person lying beside me is my wife and not a hallucination. But this is a much smaller leap of faith than the faith required to believe in God. The fact that the faith required to believe in atheism is more akin to the former than the latter is not immaterial to the argument. ---
**Author:** ![Testy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c37758/32.png) [@Testy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Testy)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/200 "2005-12-09T10:06:15Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > On one level, it’s a roundabout attempt to justify governmental support of religion by redefining secularism as a religion itself rather than the absence of religion. > > It an interesting ju-jitsu move on the First Amendment. Congress will make no law respecting the establisment of religion. Banning government-sanctioned expressions of religion is establishing “secularism”. “Secularism” is a religion, so this is forbidden. Our only recourse is to give all religions equal time. The government must publicly endorse both religion and secularism in the interest of fairness. > > (And yes, I know that “atheism” and “secularism” aren’t equivalent. However the same arguments are made about both – namely that the absence of religion is a religion itself.) > > Aside from political motives it’s also an effort to dismiss reason’s challenge to theism with “both belief systems rest on faith so we’ll just have to agree to disagree”. The problem with this argument is that different beliefs require different degrees of faith. I have faith that my senses present me with a reasonably accurate picture of the world around me – when I wake up in the morning I have faith that the person lying beside me is my wife and not a hallucination. But this is a much smaller leap of faith than the faith required to believe in God. The fact that the faith required to believe in atheism is more akin to the former than the latter is not immaterial to the argument. Thank you. That is what I was wondering as defining me as belonging to a religion seemed a rather aimless goal. It was coming across as no more than mindless, semantic obfuscation. So, is there some group of the faithful that has actually tried this argument? SBC or someone like that? Or is it just something that the religious work themselves into through lacking a logical case? Thanks again Testy [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491.md?page=11)