A challenge to Statler Waldorf

[Statler Waldorf]

---

It is answering the question. But it is a safe assumption. Christianity promotes the notion of some eternal battle between good and evil over human souls. There is a big difference. Atheism doesn't manufacture some elaborate struggle in which we are important, it simply states that because no purpose to life is readily perceivable, life does not have a purpose. It is simple, doesn't require wild imaginations or fantastic epics of the importance of man.

---

Reformed Christianity does notn believe at all that life is a battle between good and evil for human souls. If God wanted all the souls in heaven, they'd all be in heaven.

So you are admitting that atheist does try and answer the "why" question? I like your style, at least we can have an actual conversation.

[SleepingDemon]

Hmm nice. Don't take that to mean anything more than it is though. Life having no purpose may answer the question, however it is simply the neutral position. Life has no purpose until someone discovers one. (If it exists.) And thank you. I'm not the type that resorts to namecalling during a discussion. And while I am a goldfish in philosophy, I am a shark in theological debates. ;-)

[Girlysprite]

I feel like I have answered all the questions that Statler put forward. However, each time someone jumps to some detail in the post, the rest is forgotten and not commented on anymore.

I already made a good description on what religion is, and put in the caveat that some things are always going to be a huge grey zone and we have to accept that. So please feedback on why you think your definition thrumphs mine.

[Statler Waldorf]

Hmm nice. Don't take that to mean anything more than it is though. Life having no purpose may answer the question, however it is simply the neutral position. Life has no purpose until someone discovers one. (If it exists.) And thank you. I'm not the type that resorts to namecalling during a discussion. And while I am a goldfish in philosophy, I am a shark in theological debates. ;-)

Oh that's cool, I taught debate for a little bit, had a lot of fun doing it. Well I don't believe you can logically have such a thing as a "neutral" position when it comes to theological matters I am afraid. It really is one of the most brilliant aspects of the Bible; it effectively cut out any middle ground logically. If it really was written by just dumb sheep herders and fisherman they seemed to have a pretty advanced understanding of logical argumentation. :-)

A little off topic but do you believe science has limitations?

[SleepingDemon]

Limitations in regards to what? Will science make you happy? Will science console you as you bury your grandma? Will science make you less afraid of dying? No, no, and no. But will science eventually answer the questions in regards to how we got here? Most likely. Can science fix the social issues that threaten our species? No. But can science increase the survivability of our species? Yes. Science serves a purpose. It is a tool. In regards to technology it is limited only by the intellect of its user. But science will not feel the void that faith fills, nor is it designed to.

[Statler Waldorf]

Limitations in regards to what? Will science make you happy? Will science console you as you bury your grandma? Will science make you less afraid of dying? No, no, and no. But will science eventually answer the questions in regards to how we got here? Most likely. Can science fix the social issues that threaten our species? No. But can science increase the survivability of our species? Yes. Science serves a purpose. It is a tool. In regards to technology it is limited only by the intellect of its user. But science will not feel the void that faith fills, nor is it designed to.

This could be the best post I have read on here in the six months I have been on here. I get so sick of people like Peter Atkins who claim science is "omnipotent". I completely agree with you, it's a tool that helps us to obtain knowledge, not all knowledge but a lot. Thanks for that post, that was good.

---

I feel like I have answered all the questions that Statler put forward. However, each time someone jumps to some detail in the post, the rest is forgotten and not commented on anymore.

I already made a good description on what religion is, and put in the caveat that some things are always going to be a huge grey zone and we have to accept that. So please feedback on why you think your definition thrumphs mine.

Hey G-sprite,

I don't think that I necessarily feel my definition trumps yours. I was challenged to make a case as to why atheism is a religion. I think that I did that fairly well, as best I could given the task. I mean, you could have someone try and prove Christianity is a religion and you could poke holes in their method. It's a tough task, but I think I at least made some people think and maybe realize that atheism at the very least has a very religious nature to it. Ok?

[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!"

[downbeatplumb]

If it really was written by just dumb sheep herders and fisherman they seemed to have a pretty advanced understanding of logical argumentation. :-)

Have you actually read the bible?
It is incoherent nonsense for the most part.
A learning impaired primary school child has a better understanding of 'logical argumentation' than that displayed in the old testament and the new testament,lets just say I'm not a fan.

[SleepingDemon]

They were rockbangers and sheep herders. Why is there nothing in the bible that people did not believe at the time? I've heard some apologists proclaim that the focus on cleanliness was ahead of its time, however the greeks developed the same sort of practices. Some claim that the bible's claim that earth hangs upon nothing was evidence of divine guidance, but Egypt's knowledge of astronomy was well ahead of its time as well. The reality is that the bible claims that whales are fish, bats are birds, and the sun and stars are distinct celestial bodies. Slavery is accepable, wives and children are property, even to god (Job). They speak of natural disasters being god's vengeance. This is the extent of human knowledge at the time, following it as gospel would be akin to doctors using the same medical practices they used in the dark ages. Human knowledge expands, dogmatically holding onto anything conceived from our ignorance is madness

[Angrboda]

Once more down the rabbit hole.

Since you appear to be resting on your claim that, "I will stand by my original point, if you can’t demonstrate the correct way to determine what is and is not a religion, then you have no logical basis to say the way I did it was somehow incorrect." I will produce a definitive refutation of this point.

First, since you appear not to know what ad hominem is, Wikipedia says that, "ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise."

A) You claim that I must show the right way to demonstrate 'atheism = religion' if my arguments are to be valid; if I must demonstrate that atheism is a religion in order to show that atheism is not a religion, I prove that atheism is a religion in spite of myself.

B) You'll no doubt claim that my criteria need not show atheism a religion, but we all know if I do show that 'atheism =/= religion', you'll just whine about my criteria being wrong, which again satisfies the premise that I can't show the right way, and therefore all my arguments are wrong (returning us to 'A'); I will trivially satisfy this by claiming that if the majority of a group claiming a particular social group identity believe or assert that belonging to that group implies belonging to a religion, then all who identify as being a member of that group can be considered as belonging to a religion in the absence of other evidence. This is true by the reference to the base rate for the group; if the probability of M being 'religion' is greater than 'not religion', then it follows that the most probable case for any M is 'religion'. (note 1) Since the majority of atheist claim 'not religion', atheism is 'not religion'.

C) If I don't show a correct way to prove that 'atheism = religion', or an incorrect way to show that 'atheism = religion', then you discount all my arguments on the grounds that if I can't demonstrate the above, I'm not capable of forming valid counter-arguments (Non sequitur, Ad hominem); since I can't demonstrate you are wrong, then your claim wins by default, ergo 'atheism = religion'.

D) A, B, or C are my only options.

Conclusion: No matter what, I end up proving that 'atheism = religion' and lose. But if all arguments lead to the same conclusion, it is a tautology, and thus true by definition, not by argument.

If I accept your supposition that I must produce valid criteria to even be allowed a voice, I am denied that pleasure because ALL the options lead to my denial. I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't. If all roads lead to Rome, it's quite insufferable of you to complain that I didn't take you to Paris.

Additionally, since you claim I must prove 'atheism = R' and 'atheism not-equal R', your request is asking me to show that a thing and its opposite are both true. This is forbidden by the law of non-contradiction, as doing so leads logically to the conclusion that ALL claims are true, regardless of content (See The Principle of Logical Explosion). You're asking me to prove a point by blowing up the world, logically speaking.

Note 1: I'm not claiming this is a definitive argument, but it at least has the benefit of not telling atheists that non-atheists know better than atheists themselves. But I have minimally satisfied your criteria, now if you complain about my criteria being wrong, you will have fulfilled my prediction in 'B' and led us right back to 'A'. By all means, feel free to prove me right; again.