37 Reader Responses

1. Ktulu Says:
   November 30th, 2005 at 2:53 am

   I must say, IMO, atheism is a religion, a religion dominated by the left-brain. The rituals? Logical analysis, and any many “sects”, religion bashing, primarily Christianity. Most, if not all, atheists will claim to be free thinkers, in fact I regularly attend a Free Thinkers forum at VCU (unfortunaly I’m the only gnostic, and most are anti-Christian atheists), but they rarely seem to be so. They rarely are able to open up to their right-brain, to truly experience the world beyond analytical hypothesis and logical deductions.

   I see atheism as a “reactionary religion”, one that sees through some of the BS in organized religions, perhaps “brain-stem” religions, but fails to consider why the human mind needs certain aspects of religion, like faith and ritual. Thus they entrap themselves within the left-brain, cutting off the majority of their creative centers, their potentials for genius. Without such connections, athiests and athiesm, IMO, begin to lose all capacity to make the next leap, the catalytic jump from one realm to the next. Instead, much like technological growth, their only room for “innovation”, is to make things smaller, faster, and better, but they are unable to create the next step in humanity’s advancement (like the jump from the Space Shuttle to intergalactic travel).

   On a side note, something just occured to me that may prove to be quite interesting in relating to Plato’s Allegory of the Cave:

   “Brain-stem” religions (organized, dogmatic traditions) are much like being tied down in the cave, believing whatever you are taught to believe. Their tools are faith and ritual. Put into holographic terms, it’s like looking at the two-dimensional transparent slide of spirituality (or perhaps just “the mysteries”), and saying that there are patterns in the incoherent lines - sometimes the patterns (myths?) might mean something relating to the true holographic picture, other times, it’s utter non-sense.

   Atheism, “Free-thinkers”, and other left-brain religions are comprised of individuals who have been released of their bonds, but see the cave as the best there is, and try to make it a comfy one. Hence they look down upon all those trapped, but in an essence, they’re usually trapped by their own arrogance, their fallible trust in their logical supremecy (logic is merely a tool, not a means to an end). They see the holographic picture of “the mysteries”, and see utter non-sense - “it’s just random scribbles on a piece of paper!” They eventually throw it away, and try to forget about it, usually after arguing with those in chains about the meaning of it.

   True Occultic religions (as in those actually devoted to exploring the occult, Greek for “hidden”), lie, IMO, somewhere in the right-brain. Their tool is the inner light that compels them forward, the curiosity to explore and the gumption to question, the search for an ultimate truth that can satisfy what their intuition knows to be out there. They look at the transparent paper, and perhaps with their own dim, inner light (divine spark), they can tell that something lies “between the lines”. They don’t know what it is, but they know something is there. So they search. They break free of their chains, ignore the crap of the fire, and push outward, towards a true source of illumination that will fully light “the mysteries” of the paper. They search for the world outside the cave, where the Sun will be able to illuminate the paper (the 3rd stage of plato’s allegory also correlating to the 3-D properties of holograms).

   Enlightment comes when all areas of the brain are connected into one cohesive unit. Many equate this to the third eye. Most will say the third eye is the Pineal Gland, but I say it’s the Corpus Callosum, which is in front of the Pineal Gland, and is the part of the brain responsible for connecting the two hemispheres together. I would tend to agree that the Pineal Gland is the part of the brain that connects us to the spiritual world (See: DMT: The Spirit Molecule), but Enlightenment (and hence the third eye) comes not from being able to connect to the spiritual world or the godhead, but being able to fully integrate all areas of consciousness. Hence why the Corpus Callosum is so integral.

   Well that was a bunch to swallow (and write), but I hope it’ll stimulate so extra thoughts on the side

2. Jacob Says:
   November 30th, 2005 at 3:00 am

   1. What is atheism?

   Absolute personal belief in a lack of deity. This is crucially different than “absolute certainty” in a scientific sense (which doesn’t actually exist any way.)

   2. What is theism?

   Absolute personal belief in deity.

   3. Is atheism (as according to it’s very name) simply a refutation of theism? (Kind of like how certain forms of Satanism are an inversion of Christianity)

   One might say it’s the natural conclusion one reaches when he does not find any satisfying evidence for things religious. So no, at least not necessarily, I think that’s probably over-simplifying things, but there are many atheists who’s beliefs are so lacking in subtlety and sophistication that I’m tempted to say yes.

   4. What is a religion?

   A willfully systematized ideology that constantly informs one’s world-view. Usually self-sufficient.

   5. What are the criteria for establishing whether or not something is a religion?

   The fundamental criteria, IMO, is not aesthetic or ethical in nature. Stuff like ritual and moral conceptions are not necessarily indicative of a religion. See #4

   6. Is there any value in trying to decide whether or not something is a religion? If so, what is the value? What does it help us do in our own lives and how does it enable us to better understand and relate to others?

   I’m not absolutely saying that atheism, in all its manifestations is religious. But I think we have to be vigilant for where it crosses that line into dogmatism.

   1. Would you consider yourself an atheist, agnostic or similar?

   None of the above (and all at once, if I prefer), I just can’t define myself in that regard and refuse to try.

   2. What in your life brought you to this position?

   Lots of cognitive dissonance–I often found myself being in two opposed camps at once.

   3. How would you compare atheists to people who practice or believe in religions?

   They’re pretty much the same, it’s like you have different martial arts with different kata, but they follow in response to the same attacks and have similar movements.

   4. Do you think atheists are more “realistic” or less “superstitious” than people who are not atheists? What do you mean by those things?

   They’re less superstitious, but not because they’re better informed, but because their sense of mystery is often repressed. The atheist ideal, in general, seems to be to have an internal model of reality that is the most consistent with what’s probably “out there”–I consider this to be as unnatural as trying to force your mind into a rigid biblical perspective.

   Off-topic note: I seriously don’t get why superstition is regarded with derision by so many even in spiritual circles, they don’t seem to understand its function at all

   5. If you are an agnostic or an atheist, what would it take as far as “proof” to alter your belief system (or lack thereof, depending how you slice it)?

   Having been both, I’ll tell you that if it wasn’t for a gradual paradigm shift occuring over the years while I was still young, it would’ve taken some serious ideological trauma to get me to shift my sense of reality so deeply.

   Conclusion:
   If you look at religion as if it was an actual disease, doctors would probably consider atheism to be as much a strain of it as christianity, et al. The symptoms are often very similar.

3. bill m. Says:
   November 30th, 2005 at 3:10 am

   My dad was a doctor and a vehement atheist. He was raised a catholic and smacked around by nuns. Definitely an over-emphasis on logic and rational thought; he had/has a very luciferian energy, good in some respects. brutal in others. I always joke around telling people about him by saying ‘only someone who went to catholic high school in the fifties could ever be such an atheist’.
   I think for alot of people it is a simple reaction to something thats lacking in whatever mainstream religion they’ve been raised in, and can be useful in examining that religion critically. But sometimes they go so far in the opposite direction they repress the god archetype completely. I am reminded by something that was said about Ayn Rand by William F. Buckley of all people– that she rejected a higher power so completely that she eventually replaced god with herself. This to me seems a sort of run of the mill atheist problem– a lack of humility and perspective on oneself, and ironically, an unfullfilment of personal potential.

4. bill m. Says:
   November 30th, 2005 at 3:14 am

   Oh yeah, over-identifying with the god archetype seems to lead to the same problem.
   I seem to remember it was an Islamic interpretation of the fallen angel story that Lucifer was thrown out of heaven because he loved God too much; he refused to serve man.
   Don’t know if any of this helps in defining atheism per se.. just some thoughts triggered.

5. Ktulu Says:
   November 30th, 2005 at 3:22 am

   I do believe that belief predates Islam, as I remember Joseph Campbell stating that it originated in Persia, which had it’s epoch around 500 BC (1000+ years before Islam).

6. bill m. Says:
   November 30th, 2005 at 3:26 am

   oh yeah, thats right– I got the two confused.

7. Tim Boucher Says:
   November 30th, 2005 at 3:56 am

   Wow! Great thoughts everybody. I have stuff to chime in with, but its so late, I ought to be in bed. This is already shaping up to be a very fruitful discussion.

8. dunneIV » Speaking of literacy Says:
   November 30th, 2005 at 5:00 am

   […] 8217; Christ. This is the second day in a row I have posted something similar to what Tim has posted without having checked. That’s my answer to Austin Cline: […]

9. JK Says:
   November 30th, 2005 at 5:17 am

   Goddamn there is such a bounty of wisdom and knowledge on planet Earth if you only take the time to ask it. Astonishing conversation here. Very beautiful. . .

10. Joe Says:
    November 30th, 2005 at 6:22 am

    “I’ll just copy in the opening two paragraphs here, because I know some people are too lazy to go and actually read the page.”

    Yes, they probably are - and that’s a shame, since they’ll never see how you have misrepresented your subject.

    “…found somebody who suggested that atheism in itself is a religion…”

    Actually, it’s someone who wrote an extended argument to demonstrate that atheism is a religion as part of a blog dedicated to the topic that atheism is a religion. A bit more than “suggested.” But saying “suggested” lets you portray others in a more negative light, correct? Sounds kinda shrill. Bombastic. Defensive. Even… pompous.

    “…and just about flipped his wig over the whole thing…”

    A more fair description would be “and went on about how awful that argument was - like defining religion in Christian terms rather than general terms.”

    “In order to talk about this topic, we’ll probably have to explore (at the very least) the following issues:”

    You forgot to add: Why is Tim Boucher so hostile to someone who answers the question with a “no.”

    What’s the point of asking a question when you are going to poison the well by misrepresenting what others have said and done? Don’t worry, I’ll answer that for you: there’s no point! None whatsoever. It’s certainly not an attempt to understand anyone.

11. Ktulu Says:
    November 30th, 2005 at 7:24 am

    Joe, I’ll agree with you that Tim may have added a little bit of unnecessary emphasis, I don’t think his intentions were anymore hostile than the author of the article in question (I believe less, in fact).

    But if you analyze the author’s approach, I’m sure you’ll detect that his attitude is in fact, bombastic, defensive, and perhaps even pompous.

    The idea that atheism is a religion is one of the most common and ridiculous myths that religious believers try to spread.

    This initial sentence, if we are to believe that the writer is so learned in the skill of writing (as he seems to imply later in his contempt of the “blogger” and his apparent “a scintilla of research before trying to write”), is his thesis, and thus the entire psyche and emotion of his arguement lies in this sentence. Analyzing this sentence, we find out-right rejection of the notion in question, “Is Atheism a Religion?”, and a blatant attempt to separate himself from the “blogger”. Also, by saying the notion is a “ridiculous myth”, he is showing at least a “supreme” (i.e. bombastic and pompous) position towards the notion, which psychologically is usually a sign of a defense mechanism being activated (isolation from the issue or object that is causing the psychological distress).

    Now, if the conclusion or closing remarks (for these are the final thoughts on a subject and have a persuasive hold on the mind of reader - thus would indicate the intentions of the author, assuming, again, that he was a well-learned writer) held some kind of apologetic or open-minded ending, then perhaps the labels such as, “Bombastic”, “Defensive”, and “Pompous”, would be allowed to drop to the way-side. Unfortuantely the author in question, who seems to be “well-learned” (Austin holds a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Pennsylvania and a Master of Arts from Princeton University, and he also studied for one year at both the University of Zurich and the Ludwig-Maximillian University in Munich, Germany.), he does not redeem himself.

    Of course, so is the claim that atheists seek to force atheism on every and “strive to make all religion illegal in any and all aspects of our lives.” That’s practically libelous in nature, but what can be expected from someone with such a warped understanding of logic and language? One can only conclude that his or her entire view of reality is warped as well.

    First, the author fails at something he seems to have such a firm grasp on, and that’s language and logic. He asserts, “They will force us all to become atheists”, to mean that “they” are atheists, when in fact the “blogger” was referring to the government and never once made an assumption about the beliefs of those within the government. The “blogger” just said that the government was pushing for atheism, and pushing for something does not necessarily imply that you are one.

    Second, to accuse some of slander (libel) is equal to a verbal attack, and one would only launch an attack, if they felt threatened (or if you want to conquer, but I doubt conquering is on his agenda). Then the repeated use of “warped” (as well as “twisted” earlier) in reference to the views of the “blogger”, shows clear bombastic intent.

    So, I agree that “flipped his wig” and “suggested” were probably misused by Tim, but the author was clearly hostile in both opening and closing, and clearly tried to separate himself from the “blogger” he was “putting in line”.

    :)

12. Thomas W Clark Says:
    November 30th, 2005 at 7:52 am

    Sorry dude but the courts have ruled. Here is a news article.

    LAW OF THE LAND
    Court rules atheism a religion
    Decides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate’s right to start study group

    ——————————————————————————–
    Posted: August 20, 2005
    1:00 a.m. Eastern

    ——————————————————————————–

    A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate’s rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.

    “Atheism is [the inmate’s] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,” the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.

    The court decided the inmate’s First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.

    Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called the court’s ruling “a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence.”

    “Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion,” said Fahling.

    The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described “secular humanism” as a religion.

    Fahling said today’s ruling was “further evidence of the incoherence of Establishment Clause jurisprudence.”

    “It is difficult not to be somewhat jaundiced about our courts when they take clauses especially designed to protect religion from the state and turn them on their head by giving protective cover to a belief system, that, by every known definition other than the courts’ is not a religion, while simultaneously declaring public expressions of true religious faith to be prohibited,” Fahling said.

13. landruc Says:
    November 30th, 2005 at 11:25 am

    1. What is atheism?

    The belief that there is no God.

    2. What is theism?

    The belief that there is one God.

    3. Is atheism (as according to it’s very name) simply a refutation of theism? (Kind of like how certain forms of Satanism are an inversion of Christianity)

    Yes.

    4. What is a religion?

    An organization that uses a set system of beliefs to mediate between (and interfere with) individuals and their relationship to and experience of reality.

    5. What are the criteria for establishing whether or not something is a religion?

    I use the above definition. Other people have other criteria.

    6. Is there any value in trying to decide whether or not something is a religion? If so, what is the value? What does it help us do in our own lives and how does it enable us to better understand and relate to others?

    If there is a value, it is that it allows us to look critically at beliefs others try to infect us with, and the beliefs we are already infected with.

    1. Would you consider yourself an atheist, agnostic or similar?

    Agnostic. I don’t have the strength of character to be an atheist.

    2. What in your life brought you to this position?

    Lots and lots and lots of pain.

    3. How would you compare atheists to people who practice or believe in religions?

    That depends on the individuals involved. Not all atheists are alike and not all theists are alike.

    4. Do you think atheists are more “realistic” or less “superstitious” than people who are not atheists? What do you mean by those things?

    You’re the one who used the terms. What do you mean by them? My answer would depend on yours.

    5. If you are an agnostic or an atheist, what would it take as far as “proof” to alter your belief system (or lack thereof, depending how you slice it)?

    Regarding the existence of God? I usually don’t like to consider evidence of the existence of God because, based on my experience, the chances are that any God that exists is evil.

14. Stephen Says:
    November 30th, 2005 at 11:43 am

    the only thing non-atheist and atheist have in common is that they both believe in something. Their beliefs are completely different but they do believe in the existence and non-existence of god. As far as im concern, they’re a certain side, a certain part of the truth. I say, they’re both right and THEY’RE BOTH WRONG! Life is filled with nonsense, Religion and Atheism is one of them. God! they’re gotta be another way, a right way of seeing through this nonsense we call LIFE!

15. ash Says:
    November 30th, 2005 at 12:29 pm

    Atheism is a religion *if* you define a religion merely as something that one believes in strongly, and usually stridently. By those standards, dental hygiene, public education, and the superiority of American made products also count as religions. Atheists usually believe strongly in atheism, therefore they are religionists. BFD. What have we learned from this? Nothing, maybe?

    From here we get to the primary purpose of this statement: to score debating points on atheists by accusing them of being or resembling what they oppose. And no one can deny that many atheists are just as dogmatic and intolerant as any of the most fundamentalist adherents of any of the major world religions. Is that news to anyone?

    Another thing: many of those who accuse atheists of being intolerant religionists are themselves intolerant religionists; their complaint against atheists is merely that they are intolerant religionists who profess the wrong religion. I’m reminded of an old episode of “All in the Family” where Gloria accuses meathead of being just as bigoted in his own way as Archie Bunker… Here, Archie chimes in saying, “See,? you’re just as bad as me!”

    BTW, I’m not an atheist or an agnostic, I’m just impatient with the sloppy thinking that passes for profundity on topics like this.

16. Ktulu Says:
    November 30th, 2005 at 2:10 pm

    Another thing to add to the table is Universism. They claim to want to form a religion, based upon uncertainty of absolute conviction (gnostic search for truth?). They claim to be at the center of what connects Atheism, Deism, Pantheism, Agnosticism, and Transcendentalism (lol, odd mix, ain’t it?).

    The Universist Alternative places emphasis on the attitude and spirit in which you address religious questions, and the tools you use to do so, rather than focusing on any conclusions that you may arrive at.

    Interesting, and perhaps an additional tangent to go off with on the whole Atheist debate because in Universism, they can be a religion!

17. Lynn S Says:
    November 30th, 2005 at 2:12 pm

    Athiesm is not a religion but sometimes it is. Some atheists are religious about their atheism. If you feel self-righteous about being an atheist then atheism is your religion.

18. Tim Boucher Says:
    November 30th, 2005 at 2:33 pm

    One of my all-time favorite quotes was left by somebody on this site a couple months ago, and I can’t remember who. They said something like, “Some people worship God by saying they hate him or that he doesn’t exist.”

    I think that’s pretty much brilliant, whoever said it.

19. Tim Boucher Says:
    November 30th, 2005 at 2:34 pm

    PS. Ktulu, another good call. I’ve been meaning to get a big research piece done on Universism. I have a whole bunch of pages bookmarked. Yet another article I will write in the next week or so.

20. jp Says:
    November 30th, 2005 at 2:48 pm

    i’m surprised nobody’s mentioned the root of the word ‘religion’ yet, relagare, which means ‘to bind together.’ in this sense, atheism is a religion inasmuch as it presents a system of belief whereby individuals are ‘bound together.’ i don’t really think it *has* to be a matter of belief in the supernatural. i know a few atheists who are very satisfied in believing in the supernatural, but don’t believe in god(s).

21. Tim Boucher Says:
    November 30th, 2005 at 2:58 pm

    I think that’s a great topic all by itself - how many people who describe themselves as atheists, but who are actively into or believing the supernatural?

    Also, I think another relevant question is - how many atheists dont believe in god simply because the idea of a guy on a throne in the clouds doesnt make sense to them, but who might be able to make do with a less personalized pantheist divinity?

22. rev max Says:
    November 30th, 2005 at 5:49 pm

    Evola quotes Sri Ramakrishna as saying that the man who loves god will acheive transcendence after 7 incarnations

    the man who hates god will reach the divine after only 3 incarnations, because his hatred causes him to think about it so much!!!!!!!!!!!

23. james Says:
    November 30th, 2005 at 5:53 pm

    Religions (in my armchair opinion) are spawned by culture. Have there ever been any culture that embraced atheism not as a reaction to a prior culture but as a neceesary evolutionary step? Even primitive cultures believe in tree trunks and deities we Westerners might find absurd. But has there ever been an ancient, atheistic tribe of, say, Pygmies for example, whose atheistic values remained unchanged?

    I know one of you has GOT to have some info on this. Very rarely am I let down on this site.

24. bill m. Says:
    November 30th, 2005 at 6:21 pm

    ash–
    discussing atheism can give a window into the process and idea of belief itself, seperate from what it is that is being believed. there are general patterns and specific patterns, and it can be enlightening to notice what is general and universal about the human experience and what is localized (does anyone doubt that flossing your teeth will keep them in your mouth longer, regardless of what you believe about it?).
    I don’t think anyone here is going for cheap debating points.

25. landruc Says:
    November 30th, 2005 at 7:01 pm

    “Some people worship God by saying they hate him or that he doesn’t exist.”

    I’m definitely in the hate category. Which causes me to wonder if anybody here has seen The Believer. It’s about a Jewish Neo-Nazi, who is envisioned as a sort of rabbi-manqué.

26. Ktulu Says:
    November 30th, 2005 at 8:00 pm

    Well interesting enough, the author in question, Austin Cline, actually has an article on the question you asked, James, here.

    As Durant explains, certain Pygmy tribes found in Africa were observed to have no identifiable cults or rites. There were no totems, no gods, no spirits. Their dead were buried without special ceremonies or accompanying items and received no further attention. They even appeared to lack simple superstitions, according to travelers’ reports.

    Tribes in Cameroon only believed in malicious gods and so made no efforts to placate or please them. According to them, it was useless to even bother trying and more important to deal with whatever problems were placed in their path. Another group, the Vedahs of Ceylon, only admitted the possibility that gods might exist, but went no further. Neither prayers nor sacrifices were suggested in any way. When specifically asked a god, Durant reports that they answered in a very puzzled manner:

    The article is more than just that, but that’s a preview.

27. alistair Says:
    November 30th, 2005 at 9:05 pm

    the game is played by demanding proof of a position as a way of defeating it. why do we need proofs? science is the only religion that demands proof, thanks in no small part to rene descartes. i will make the comparison to the creationist/darwinist debate. why does it have to be one or the other as the absolute correct and sole answer, other than to justify grant money or tax-free status? the mechanism of polarising-by-proof stops inquiry.

28. james Says:
    November 30th, 2005 at 9:32 pm

    Ktulu– thanks for the link. I knew someone here would have something…

29. james Says:
    November 30th, 2005 at 9:37 pm

    I just read the link. Here’s an excerpt that taps upon what I consider to be my stance on the issue:

    “In all of the above we find, even among supposedly “primitive” cultures, many of the themes which persist today in people’s overt skepticism about the validity and value of religion: Vi>the inability to actually see any of the claimed beings, reluctance to imagine that something unknown caused what is known, and the idea that even if a god exists, it is so far beyond us as to be irrelevant to our affairs. ”

    I wouldn’t say I’m reluctant to imagine, but that’s because I have no reluctance to imagine anything. But I am kind of the type of person that demands certain proofs. I often answer people about God by replying that I believe he/she/it exists, but I don’t worship him/her/it.

30. Ktulu Says:
    November 30th, 2005 at 10:10 pm

    LOL, Timothy Leary did research on the psychedelic experience in religious believers, and found that most had what they deemed to be mystical experiences. I wonder what an atheist would experience during a “trip to the Void” (a very INTENSE trip). Would they experience something that would qualify as God to them? Would they see God within them? Or would the Void be so shattering to their left-brain consciousness, that it would shatter them into madness?

31. James Russell Says:
    November 30th, 2005 at 11:51 pm

    (Kind of like how certain forms of Satanism are an inversion of Christianity)

    Out of interest, Tim, what forms of Satanism aren’t just an inversion of Christianity?

32. Tim Boucher Says:
    December 1st, 2005 at 12:36 am

    Well, I don’t know a ton about the various strains, but I’ve heard people claim that there are ones which are not. I will look into it and try to recall those sources.

33. Anonymous Says:
    December 1st, 2005 at 1:28 am

    Lets look at what Mirriam-Webster has to say:

    Religious: http://m-w.com/dictionary/religious
    1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity

    Religion: http://m-w.com/dictionary/religion
    1 : the service and worship of God or the supernatural : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
    2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
    4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

    –

    It seems that Atheism meets many of these definitions. It manifests faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality, and it involves an institutional set of system of beliefs and practices (e.g. the scientific method) regarding this ultimate reality and it is often a system of beliefs held with ardor and faith (e.g. scientism).

34. ash Says:
    December 1st, 2005 at 10:49 am

    Bill m.: Not accusing anyone here of attempting to score debating points. I just think it’s meaningless to say that atheism “is” a religion.The statement’s power–such as it is–comes from the faux irony of saying that something that claims to be anti-religious is itself a religion. By implication, atheism is discredited if it turns out to be a religion, in the same way that, say, a president who claims to be protecting you from deranged religious fanatics loses credibility if it turns out that he himself is a deranged religious fanatic.

    In connection with that, I wonder why the worst thing that reactionary types can say about opponents is that they are like them. A conservative friend of mine says that I’m a liberal fundamentalist. When I forced him to unpack it, what it came down to wass that I believe strongly in “liberal” solutions to national and international problems. The only purpose was the presumed irony of associating me with the religious right or the Taliban.

35. Error 404 Says:
    December 1st, 2005 at 11:12 am

    Most of the atheists I’ve encountered specificaly don’t beleive in the God of Abraham (i.e. the God of Jews, Christians and Muslims). The non-existance of Thor, Loki, Apollo, etc. and the non-divine nature of my cat are acknowledged in passing if the question comes up, but it is the non-existance of Yaweh that is central.

    I’ve seen two different atheisms - one does not beleive that there is a God, the other beleives that there is not a God. The difference is subtle but profound. I don’t know any Atheist Fundimentalists of the first type. The second, I would argue, is a religion. Penn Jillette’s “This I beleive” essay describes it exceptionally well. Paradoxicaly, the first is not likely to bother denying being a religion.

36. ash Says:
    December 1st, 2005 at 12:21 pm

    Error 404: You’ve basically described the difference between atheist-leaning agnosticism and hard-core atheism, the difference being the absolute “is” statement that defines the latter… Back to the atheism as religion thing, atheism definitely is a belief system. And the absolute statement that there is no God is, as religionists point out, a statement of faith. Not that this means much…

37. landruc Says:
    December 1st, 2005 at 1:30 pm

    It seems that Atheism meets many of these definitions. It manifests faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality, and it involves an institutional set of system of beliefs and practices (e.g. the scientific method) regarding this ultimate reality and it is often a system of beliefs held with ardor and faith (e.g. scientism).

    No it doesn’t. Yes, certain atheists belong to institutionalized groups, but many don’t. Not all are fundamentalist Darwinists. Scientism may be an atheistic religion (as, technically, is Buddhism), but not all atheists are scientists. Most Communists are also atheists, but not all atheists are Communists.

    Not everyone who believes there is a God is a member of a religion, either.