A challenge to Statler Waldorf

[Angrboda]

Are you even for real? lol. You just proved there are people who dispute the existence of fairies (something I never contested). You in no way proved that it resembles the "New Atheism" in the slightest (no pushing for legal rights, holidays, moral codes, seeking of converts, figure heads). You seem to always fall short of comprehending the point of the analogy. Atheism is a one of a kind "absence of belief" system, and you cannot and will never be able to point to one like it.

Oh now it has to resemble the "New Atheism" ? If I lag behind, it's because you keep moving the goalposts. You originally claimed that atheism was a religion based on Smart's criteria; then you detailed to SleepingDemon an entirely different set of traits that identify 'a-fairyism' (aka, atheism, and I contended also skepticism); now you've changed the test, yet again, to how much it resembles the New Atheism. I'm getting dizzy! Are you now suggesting the test of whether something is a religion or not is how closely it resembles the New Atheism? Beside the fact that the "New Atheism" doesn't speak for atheists as a whole, if resembling the "New Atheism" is the test, Reformed Christianity is not a religion (I don't think; do Reformed Christians act like the "New Atheists" ? I hope not. But if this is now your test of a religion, feel free to demonstrate that Reformed Christians resemble "New Atheists") I will respond to whether skepticism meets Smart's criteria another time; I will in the meantime evaluate skepticism/a-fairyism with respect to the criteria you gave SleepingDemon (roughly 13, 5 of which I dispute, and 7 of the remaining 8 are all met by skepticism (skepticism doesn't meet #8); see below. So on criteria that you and I can agree are characteristic of atheism, only one separates atheism and skepticism. I can see why you are again changing your argument.

On to your second set of criteria (although if by proposing a new set of criteria, you are abandoning Smart's criteria, glad to hear it! ):

---

The full text of your criteria:

---

Ok, I see why you are making the comparison between believing in God and believing in fairies, I get the point you are making. I just think it's not a proper comparison. I don't believe in fairies anymore than you do. However, let’s say that I started calling myself an "A-fairy-ist", and I started frequenting forums targeted at people who also shared my disbelief in fairies. I also purchased books written by some of the A-fairy-ist leaders in the a-fairy-ist community. These leaders went around the world participating in debates trying to make a-fairy-ists out of people. Some of these leaders wrote books designed to evangelize and convert others to a-fairy-ism. Many of these a-fairy-ists described their conversion to a-fairy-ism as a liberating day and the greatest moment of their life. Many of these a-fairy-ists wanted to also make a federal holiday to recognize the birth of a great scientist who they believed helped show the world that believing in fairies was not necessary because science could explain it all away. Let's say that many of these a-fairy-ists referred to this scientist as "the Great Liberator" and defended his honor and ideas with a great ferocity. Let's also say that some a-fairy-ists had also developed their own moral code and called it Secular Fairy-ism. They tried to convince others that this was the best moral code for society. Let's also say that a-fairy-ists held their own conventions where they celebrated popular figures' conversions to a-fairy-ism, and chastised and ridiculed former a-fairy-ists for leaving the movement. Many of my a-fairy-ist friends would go to court to ensure that we a-fairy-ists had the same “religious freedoms” as our fairy-ist friends. We’d also take out ads and put up signs in public forums to try and convert others to a-fairy-ism. Let's also say that I chastised "fairy-ists" because their leaders had committed terrible atrocities in the distance past, but then would turn around and say that the a-fairy-ists who had committed far worse atrocities in the not-so-distant past didn't do it because they were a-fairy-ists because a-fairy-ism can do no wrong because it really is not a true position or belief.
If my a-fairy-ist friends and I really did all of this, you'd be one of the first people calling us religious, and for good reason. So there you go.
I can point to many atheists who do all of these things and unless you can point to people who act like this when it comes to their “absence of belief” in fairies, the comparison to atheism really is not proper.

---

In your response to SleepingDemon, the criteria were:

1) frequenting forums (JREF forums, skeptic.com forums, theskepticsguide.com forums, centerforinquiry.net forums [linked from CSICOP.org], skepticsannotatedbible.com [discussion board], skepticforum.com, ukskeptics.com forums, skepticfriends.com forums, youngausskeptic.com [an Australian skeptics forum], and on and on);

2) purchased books written by fellows (skeptic books and magazines sell quite well),

3) went around the world participating in debates trying to make skeptics out of believers (I understand you're a YEC -- both skeptics from the biological sciences (including religious deists, Buddhists and others) and amateurs do this -- need I say "Hugh Ross"? You will find skeptics "defending reason" in America, Europe, Australia, Asia and elsewhere (IIRC, members of the skeptic's organization CSICOP went to China to further critical thinking about traditional Chinese medicine -- that I think qualifies as going "around the world"),

4) write books attempting to evangelize others (skeptics do this; I have a pile of magazines here exclusively on skepticism and a 541 page tome on skepticism's history ("Doubt" by Jennifer M. Hecht); and I also have Viktor Stenger's newest book on the fallacy of the fine-tuning argument. If you need a list of skeptic-centric literature, I can readily oblige you;

5) describing their skeptic conversion as liberating and a great day (I recently spoke with a self-avowed skeptic who described their release from theism [at a skeptic's meeting] who was happy to have "found himself" in skepticism, and a self-titled "SkepChick" who previously believed a lot of woo, and described her 'deconversion' by the website "A Skeptic's Guide To The Universe" as being quite liberating and one of the greatest events in her life; yes, their are 'former-woo' deconversions (Susan J. Blackmore, ex-parapsychologist, author of several skeptic books comes to mind);

6) [next,] yes, they consider their skepticism deeply indebted to the proofs of science and the scientific method [some asserting that skepticism is the application of the scientific method to doubtful claims;

7) reading between the lines, I presume by "this scientist as 'the Great Liberator' and defended his honor and ideas with a great ferocity" you are referring to Darwin -- first, Darwin's evolutionary theory is not a part of atheist dogma and we do not 'defend his honor', nor always his ideas (where they are wrong, we accept it and move on), this idea that atheists defend Darwin's "honor" is laughable, typical theist delusion; but you got me -- skeptic's don't practice hero worship (aside from Carl Sagan, James Randi, Michael Shermer, Ray Hyman.... oh wait -- maybe we do practice hero worship!) I'm joking of course, we don't worship skeptical heroes, but then, atheists don't worship Darwin either [except, again, in your mind; which appears to diverge readily from reality];

8) developed their own moral code -- okay, skeptics don't do this, except "DON'T SUPPORT WOO! and "Think Critically!" or just "Think!" But then, neither do atheists! George Smith in his book "The Case Against God" lays out what he terms "rational morality", based on Ayn Rand's objectivism -- I don't agree with him, and I doubt you'd find anything close to agreement among atheists generally; Richard Carrier has written a similar tract on morality ("Sense and Goodness Without God") and I don't agree with him either; here's a test, propose a poll wherein atheists must declare the source and content of their moral code -- I'd be interested to see the results, but I conjecture that getting atheists to agree on a moral code is akin to attempting to herd cats, but lotsa luck! To be honest, I'm not sure if skeptics have proposed and advocated moral codes (aside from evolutionary psychologists, whom you'll try to claim don't belong in the skeptic group -- but really, the one thing most evolutionary biologists share is skepticism of creationist claims. If whether skeptics form and advocate moral codes is a deal breaker for you, I'll look into it; I honestly don't know;

9) "tried to convince others that this was the best moral code for society" Um, give me a minute to catch my breathe -- I'm laughing too hard to inhale. Really. Provide some evidence that atheists in general do this, or even that a sizable minority attempt to persuade others to adopt their "atheist morality" -- and no, pointing to a dozen or so authors -- what you term "leaders" doesn't count, if indeed they propose a moral code, that's what 'leaders' do, they lead; the rest of the atheist motley crew could care less if you follow their moral code, aside from the libertarian principle that, "your right to swing your fists ends where my nose begins";

10) "held their own conventions where they celebrated popular figures' conversion", I'd be interested in your documenting an instance of this in atheists; I think you've gotten carried away with your fantasy here -- neither atheists nor skeptics hold conventions to "celebrate" their leaders' deconversions, although I'm sure some people speak ill of Antony Flew, both at atheist and skeptic conventions (indeed, I have an article in a skeptic's magazine here which discusses Antony Flew's re-conversion, but not disparagingly); anyway, what guttersnipe is indulged in is to the best of my knowledge not done as an organized part of any atheist or skeptic convention -- but I don't know, it's possible and it wouldn't surprise me all that much, though I think you'll find most atheists and skeptics denounce such behavior, but then, since you haven't documented such a case, I'll await your evidence;

11) Go to court to ensure that they had the same rights as others, well that's just plain common sense -- most groups at some point have had cause to assert their rights legally; when South African president Thabo Mbeki embraced AIDS denialism, appointed an AIDS denial friendly health minister, and worked to impede the use of proven effective AIDS treatments, I don't have a cite offhand, but I'm sure you can sympathize that people being denied access to effective medical care will try to further that goal legally, if possible; and it's common knowledge that France and Germany have both passed laws against Holocaust Denial -- a popular subject for skeptics, and I know skeptics have wrangled with Holocaust Deniers in court. However, the fact that people are going to push for "equal treatment under the law", and arguing that doing so is either religious or atheistic is absurd; but by all means, argue that fairness is a uniquely atheist value;

12) "take out ads and put up signs in public to try and convert others", atheists, skeptics and scientists have done this: In 2000, when South African president Thomas Mbeki invited several AIDS denialists to join his advisory panel on AIDS, scientists responded with the Durban Declaration, still available on the journal Nature's website; skeptics in the UK launched a public campaign, "Homeopathy: There's Nothing In It!" in which skeptics publicly "overdosed" on homeopathic remedies to convert people to their skepticism concerning homeopathy -- a year later a similar demonstration occurred in the U.S.; I'll add more if you like, but launching PR campaigns, protests, and ad campaigns is hardly the sole domain of atheists and theists;

13) "chastised "fairy-ists" because their leaders had committed terrible atrocities in the distance past, but then would turn around and say that the a-fairy-ists who had committed far worse atrocities in the not-so-distant past didn't do it because they were a-fairy-ist", I can only assume this is a reference to biblical and theist atrocities, and the atrocities of Marxist Russia and Cambodia; now I actually agree that atheist's should take more seriously the Marxist atrocities, but as a test of religion, unless you're arguing that hypocrisy is an atheist virtue or moral, I think this is really irrelevant and too specific to specific religions to be a valid criteria for a religion to meet in general. Buddhism, Taoism, and Jains have not done this and they are indeed religions. Offhand there were no atrocities committed against skeptics per se (Socrates and Hypatia notwithstanding -- the religious killed them [and others] for their skepticism), or by skeptics, that come to mind; again, if it matters, I'll look into it. Of course, this isn't counting the Jewish skeptics who arranged the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and have been abusively hounded for it ever since; yeah, I guess skeptics do have an atrocity or two in their closet, albeit as the abused [we're sorry we killed Christ!];

---

Well that's the end of that set of criteria. I count 13 criteria,

of which I dispute the validity of 5 [defend Darwin's honor (7); tried to convert others to their moral code (9); held conventions to celebrate popular deconversions (10); argue for equal rights in court -- c'mon, really, everybody argues for "equal rights" in court, not just atheists (11); and engage in blame wars to and fro (atheist versus theist, skeptic versus any advocate of woo -- blaming others and failing to take credit for your own faults is hardly specific to atheism or theism, or indeed any human group you can name (13)];

Of your 13/8 criteria, I count that skepticism meets 7 of the 8 undisputed criteria. That's over half of all your criteria and 88% of the criteria we agree on. With respect to all your criteria, regarding skepticism versus atheism, skepticism = 10/13 (77%), atheism = 11/13 (85%); very debatably the two agree on 7, 11 and 13. That's 77% versus 85% -- a mere 8% separates atheism from skepticism using your criteria -- I can see why you're pushing that your analogy clearly separates skepticism from atheism.

---

I will defer to evaluating skepticism with respect to Ninian Smart's seven dimensions of religion; I haven't actually carried out the evaluation, so I'm dying to find out how skepticism fares. If you want to defend your original criteria and argue that skepticism is not religious, by all means, begin; I'd be delighted to have you lay the groundwork for me.

As an aside, you claim I have trouble following your analogies. Unfortunately I seem to understand your analogies and arguments better than you. I know I see nuances in Smart's work you are oblivious to, and I've only recently been introduced to his work. You gave a math analogy -- I'm a mathematician -- unless you're a mathematician too and dispute that your analogy was flawed, you're implying that I was "daft" in my interpretation of your analogy -- but there you have no case; mathematicians know math, and if they or I dispute the validity of your math analogy, it's because it was a defective analogy. (And you still appear to be laboring under the assumption that your ad hominem argument was valid. Which is an astounding presumption to anyone familiar with logic; but as I pointed out, if you want to refute my argument regarding the invalidity of your ad hominem argument, do so. Show, don't tell.)

First we find you claiming that a religion was believers who met Smart's criteria. Then you analogized that atheism was not like a-fairyism (in my argument skepticism) -- supposedly demonstrating how atheism was a religion and a-fairyism is not a religion. Then you change your argument again, and, by implication your definition of religion to that which resembles the "New Atheism". In the process, you seem to have forgotten that you are trying to demonstrate traits/criteria that religions have, and that atheism is a religion according to your criteria. Dear man, you've lost track of what you were arguing and have inadvertently argued yourself into claiming that a religion is that which resembles the "New Atheism". All a person watching your perambulation toward and away from your goal can do is point and laugh; it's like watching a drunken sailor dancing with a lamp post.

"Will the real Statler Waldorf argument please stand up!"