A challenge to Statler Waldorf

[Anomalocaris]

The turnip's second best argument is "yours is just as bad as mine, so mine is better than yours". His first is of course argument from sheer verbosity, offered in the spirit of "throw enough shit and some might stick".

[Shell B]

Girlysprite, you have thusfar ignored me, but hopefully, you will not ignore this post. You have made 6 posts, most of which have been telling people how to behave. You have yet to post an introduction thread, so no one knows jack shit about you. Please take a moment to introduce yourself here.

[reverendjeremiah]

Well, a starter would be that personal attacks are not used. They do not add any valid point to the discussion. When you feel the need to remark to a personal aspect of the poster, try to make clear that it is an opinion of yours and keep it mild.....

Sprite needs lessons in detecting sarcasm

[Minimalist]

Girlysprite, you have thusfar ignored me, but hopefully, you will not ignore this post. You have made 6 posts, most of which have been telling people how to behave. You have yet to post an introduction thread, so no one knows jack shit about you. Please take a moment to introduce yourself here.

Feel free to call upon me if you need help, boss.

Kind of like tag team wrestling!

[Statler Waldorf]

Actually your argument doesn't logically floow...

It's "Flow", not "floow" you shiney little gem you.

You obviously missed the irony there. It was funny because he was calling people stupid and then couldn't spell. I was not calling anyone stupid (and I made a typo not a misspelling like he did), so your point is irrelevant. This is the kind of stuff I have come to expect from you though.
P.S. It is still Noah’s ARK not Noah’s ARC haha.
.

---

---

Actually your argument doesn't logically floow, but I do not know if any do or not, if they do it still wouldn't make you admit that it is a religion. In 500 years I am quite sure that anthropologists will consider the "New Atheism" movement of the 20th and 21st century a religious movement. It has all the markings of one.

It's not an arguement, it is a simple question.

Do any anthropologists consider atheism to be a religion based on the 7 dimensions of religion?

Does Mainstream Anthopology consider atheism a religion based o0n the 7 dimensions?

Does ANYBODY (outside of your cretinist buddies) consider atheism to be a religion?

Answer these questions with a simple yes or no or STFU.

---

I actually already answered your stupid question. I said I do not know either way, nor do I care because it's a silly question.

---

They play off of emotionalism rather than logical thinking, which sadly can be very effective even though it should never be.

Unlike religious believers who NEVER appeal to emotions and ALWAYS use "logical thinking".

"You see... there was this guy who was born of a virgin. And the guy grew up and could walk on water.... and heal the sick with a touch of his hand.... and feed a thousand people with a basket of fish.... and he was executed by the Romans , but three days later he rose up from the dead!"

Huh? The biblical narrative of Jesus' life is not emotionalism, it's narrative. Sure some religious people use emotionalism, and I call them on it as well. Pointing to bad behavior never justifies bad behavior though, I am sorry.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Hi SW, you never did tell us if any professional anthropologists use Smarts "seven dimensions of religion" to define atheism as a religion.

Well,I can't say 'none ever'. However,I can say none of the professional anthropologists who taught the subject to me at university ever did,at least not in my hearing.

Girlysprite Wrote: reverendjeremiah, you really annoy me. Such strong language is needed and does not add to the merits of any discussion. .

Get over yourself. You don't get to tell people how express themselves.

You come across as a rather young person who has not practiced debating a lot (yet) in the way you type your posts

You come across as a patronising and sanctimonious twat. Primary school teacher?

[reverendjeremiah]

In all honesty, I am NOT a word nazi. I am really easy going on forums when it comes to words. You have to really fuck up bad for me to say something.

This is the kind of stuff I have come to expect from you though.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Interesting post TDOA, thanks for actually adding to the discussion. I think you kind of addressed the issue incorrectly though. Of course you can sit here and argue that the seven dimensions of religion do not apply to atheism, just as I have argued that they do. The point is that it is far easier to apply the seven dimensions to atheism than it is even established religions like Buddhism and Jainism. I could sit here and make a pretty good case that Christianity is not a religion because not all seven dimensions apply to it and the ones that do also apply to sports and Dragonball Z. The fact is that many courts are starting to lean towards classifying the new atheism as a religion and many of the dimensions of religion do apply to atheism.

That's a poor arguement for atheism being a religion and you know it and completely missing several of my key points.
The only reason you were able to apply the seven dimensions at all is because you broadened the "fits" of the dimensions so much that just about anything could potentially be a religion. Realistically, it would be the only way could could call atheism a religion but doing so is exceptionally dishonest.

The courts might be starting to treat atheists with the same rights as the religious folk in terms of religious allowances, but that doesn't make atheism a religion.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

reverendjeremiah, you really annoy me. Such strong language is needed and does not add to the merits of any discussion. You come across as a rather young person who has not practiced debating a lot (yet) in the way you type your posts.

Perhaps you can educate me in the art of debate so that I may mature and grow in knowledge?

---

Well, a starter would be that personal attacks are not used. They do not add any valid point to the discussion. When you feel the need to remark to a personal aspect of the poster, try to make clear that it is an opinion of yours and keep it mild. I know I have been threading the grey zone myself there, with my comment against you. However, I did try to keep it as mild as possible.
In a discussion, try not to derail it with insults, but keep to the facts that are discussed.

Another good point to keep in mind is that the human mind tends to confirm its own believes, and is therefor quite hostile of new ideas. That goes for almost every aspect of life - favorite tv programmes, favorite foods, political parties... even many scientists will find themselves tripping up by unconsciously doing research where a 'true' will confirm their idea then an experiment where a 'true' would proove it invalid. And speaking from my experience, I have only witnessed someoine changing his mind on the internet twice. But remember how this part of the human psyche works and try to have a truly open mind - even towards people and points of view that you consider untrue.

Third is that when someone is 'blantently wrong' in your view, don't just stop at saying 'you're wrong'. Add a good explanation of why, and try to find resources supporting your idea, and add them to the discussion.

Four: Sometimes, or often, you will find that no one is going to change his or her mind in a discussion. You don't have to let that stop you. I have been in the RD forums quite a bit when it exsisted in it's old form, and the users had this philosofy: 'Creationists are not going to change their mind. However, we do not debate them to change their minds, but to educate all the onlookers who wish to learn more.'
This was a valuable philosofy. Not only did it encourage the users to explain their ideas in detail, it also made sure that they kept having a good and solid debating style, as you wouldn't want to appear weak by resorting to namecalling in front of an audience.

These tips are far from complete, but it's a nice start.



Back to Waldorf. To be honest, I am giggling to myself now. Not because of you, no no, but I had this funny thought. This thought was that the behavior of some people I witnessed did more to support the idea of atheism as religion more then some of your arguments. I think you know what I mean.

Anyways, after reading your last post I went to google and searched for religion definition. I found this on the wikipedia (knowing it's not the alfa and omaga for true information, it's a good start): Religion is a cultural system that creates powerful and long-lasting meaning by establishing symbols that relate humanity to beliefs and values. Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.

Now reading this; Yes, new atheism does quite appear to be so right? Not fully fledged though - but many symbols and ideas have been pushed forward and started to take root. Think of the fishy thing with the legs. And yes, I have found many common ideas and values in this new atheism community. And to be honest, it does worry me sometimes. You see, there are many atheists that tell and show pride of being able to think for themselves and their capability of logical thought. But by the same token there are quite a number of them that do repeat the same lines and arguments word by word. Sometimes for good reason; some arguments have proven themselves to work. Some arguments would deserve more thought, but never got that. Add some dose of personal attacks in the mix, and well...some atheists have a skill of coming across as very religious and even dogmatic persons. But then again, it has been proven that regardless of having a religion or not, people display 'religious behavior' in many aspects of their lives.

So where am I heading to? The facination behavior of humans in general and how quickly we fall into religious behavior. Have you ever read buyology by Martin Lindstrom? If not, you might want to try it. The author also has a blog in which he writes about his experiments that explore how consumer behavior works. The book has one chapter about the 'religious experience' when it comes to products. He scanned the heads of nuns in various ways, while they would relive profound religious experiences from the past, creating the 'religious feeling'. This religious feeling could be identified by certain patterns of brain activity, which could easily be discerned from other emotional and personal experiences. Now for the interesting part: certain consumer groups showed the same activity when viewing certain logos. Like apple users. Yes, apple invokes a religious experience. But just think of it; the shops have been designed in a very particular 'apple' way. There is mr Jobs, the grand leader. There is the enemy, Bill Gates and windows. There are big gatherings when something new comes out, religious gathering when Jobs is presenting something new. People have cheered and cried at presentations. People parrot other mac users and Jobs himself when it comes to mac vs anything else discussions. People get heated and hostile when discussing the merits of the products. And everyone knows how apple rose from a small nobody to the big company it is today. Some people see apple as a lifestyle.

I guess that if New Atheism is a religion, apple is a religion too.

And back to the description. Reading it again, it sums up behaviors, but didn't say 'religion is...'. Another line I found was Religious belief usually relates to the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities and divine involvement in the universe and human life. Alternately, it may also relate to values and practices transmitted by a spiritual leader. In some religions, like the Abrahamic religions, it is held that most of the core beliefs have been divinely revealed.. What I find lacking in atheism that I find in all other religions is the belief in 'the higher power'. By that I mean something that can not be described, observed, and completely understood by mortals. The power is explicitly something above and beyond the naturalistic world, and defies laws of nature. I avoided saying god here, because some religions believe in some higher power, but not a god (Buddhism). Some scientific principles regarding the forces that govern the universe might come across as such a force, but these principles are not beyond the mortal world and nature. They can be observed (or their status is pending until people have found a way to observe them). Because the religious belief in their divine force, there is always a part that is somewhat dogmatic. As these forces can not be observed and completely understood by mortals (according to the religions themselves, mostly) people have created rules and stories about these forces. These stories become a part of the dogma. It also gives cause to various interpetations, that all religions seem to have.

If you would say 'new atheism behaves like a religion', I'm with you. But the lack of belief in the 'something higher and beyond mortals' makes it that it is not a religion.

ps: sorry for the horribly long read.

---

Hello again G-Sprite,

Very interesting post. Forgive me if my response is not quite as long though, I just have a few points I'd like to toss out there.

First of all, I should have used the Wiki definition, I am not a fan of Wiki at all so I never even though to give it a try. I found your Apple comparison interesting but just wanted to point out that Apple does not address many of the issues in the Wiki definition like the origins of life, morals, and the purpose of life where atheism does try and address these issues (telling someone there is no purpose to life is still addressing the issue right?).

As for the requirement of "something bigger or higher" in religion, I would disagree a bit. Jainism is a religion but it only focuses on living things themselves, no real higher power. Confucianism and Taoism are both religions but they focus more on just how people should live, very little to do with the supernatural. This is why this is such a perplexing issue, because on paper atheism looks every bit as much of a religion as other world religions. I think the only thing that is unique about it is that its followers deny they are religious, but are they really the ones who make the final determination?

---

---

Interesting post TDOA, thanks for actually adding to the discussion. I think you kind of addressed the issue incorrectly though. Of course you can sit here and argue that the seven dimensions of religion do not apply to atheism, just as I have argued that they do. The point is that it is far easier to apply the seven dimensions to atheism than it is even established religions like Buddhism and Jainism. I could sit here and make a pretty good case that Christianity is not a religion because not all seven dimensions apply to it and the ones that do also apply to sports and Dragonball Z. The fact is that many courts are starting to lean towards classifying the new atheism as a religion and many of the dimensions of religion do apply to atheism.

That's a poor arguement for atheism being a religion and you know it and completely missing several of my key points.
The only reason you were able to apply the seven dimensions at all is because you broadened the "fits" of the dimensions so much that just about anything could potentially be a religion. Realistically, it would be the only way could could call atheism a religion but doing so is exceptionally dishonest.

The courts might be starting to treat atheists with the same rights as the religious folk in terms of religious allowances, but that doesn't make atheism a religion.

---

Not so much, I applied the dimensions the same exact way they are applied to other religions such as Islam, Christianity, Jainism, and Taoism. The fact of the matter is that atheism is easier to do this with than many other religions. If atheism is not a religion then why should it be granted religious freedoms? I do not get granted religious freedoms for watching football. Why is this? Probably because footballism is not a religion. I think you guys are just trying to have your cake and eat it too, be honest and admit you are a religion or stop trying to play the legal system.

[reverendjeremiah]

This is why this is such a perplexing issue, because on paper atheism looks every bit as much of a religion as other world religions. I think the only thing that is unique about it is that its followers deny they are religious, but are they really the ones who make the final determination?

Oh no, absolutely not. Waldork is the one who determines who is religious and who isnt. Lets look at your definition of Atheism..shall we?

Atheism- The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.

see, we atheists must all be religious because waldork thinks we are.

Just wondering..what "paper" about atheism made you think it was religious?

..not that I really give a shit about your fucked up opinions..you are dead wrong flat out ... but I am hoping I can get some entertainment out of you for the moment.