Atheism A Religion?: Another Facebook debate

Where I respond to a post from a facebook friend:

Anonymous- Atheism: The organized anti-organized-religion religion. 

Me- And not collecting stamps is a hobby 

Anonymous-  But you cant say that it's not a "Not Hobby" hobby. Some people might just really dislike stamps and are united in personally disagreeing with stamp collectors who think stamps are great. Sure, just because you don't see any postage on the envelope is not evidence enough to say that there might be a stamp  there, but that also doesn't mean that there isn't any postage at all. Maybe it's pre-paid postage . . . 

Me-.Yeah, I get your point, but that still wouldn't make it a religion. Uniting with others in disbelief doesn't make something a religion. Nothing like a doctrine or dogma necessarily follows from "God is not real". There are humanist, scientific, skeptical, and other philosophies that may follow, not from necessity but from proclivity and there may be some atheists that do follow something that resembles religion but religion does not necessarily follow atheism. 

Anonymous- I see you point as well, but I would argue that there are some religions that DO follow atheism. Buddhism does not advocate the belief of any gods as everything is an illusion. Jainism is a religion of self-reliance and self- control, god's need not apply. Also, LaVeyan Satanism, which is almost literally a"Not Hobby" hobby. An almost anti-religion religion. etc. I agree with you on your above point, but I would argue that the term atheism no longer only implies "no-god" but has become some kind of weird hipster anti-religion religion that pits Science (with a capital S) against religion in general. Those two things couldn't be more different, I'm certain there are many brilliant scientist who might also happen to be Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Zoroastrians, etc.  

Me-Yes, many people who are atheists are also the things you listed above as well as humanists, skeptics, and many other things that have nothing to do with god. This does not make atheism a religion. Atheism is one thing: A non-belief or a lack of belief. You cannot, logically, get from atheism to buddhism, Jainism or even humanist philosophy, but yes atheism is sometimes or often associated with these things. You cannot get from point A to point B simply because atheism has no doctrine, no dogma, no charter or guide book. You can be a libertarian, homeopath psychic who thinks bunnies are leaders of a conspiracy to control humans by way of drug injected easter eggs and still be an atheist.
Oh, and to call the modern atheist movement as "some kind of weird hipster anti-religion religion that pits Science (with a capital S) against religion in general"  dismisses the often genuine, thoughtful, and concerned people who are behind it. Many of these people are not out to necessarily eradicate religion but rather keep it out of places where it doesn't belong. Places where it has held sway for millenia for no just or defensible reason. Many atheists are okay with people believing what they wish and I am certainly one of those. Certainly not all atheists, but we don't claim to be a cohesive movement. I would say that rational, humanist atheist share this sentiment, however. If you listen to or read many of the most prominent you will find this. I do believe that, in whole, the world would be a better place if we lived our lives, based our laws, and generally believed things based on the best evidence we can muster rather than on faith. I don't see much value in the religious kind of faith. I also feel that some aspects of religion are good, but I don't think that these aspects are exclusive to religion. These things being community, charity, ceremony, etc.
Atheism has been quiet for a very long time. It's had to for it's survival. In the last two centuries it has slowly gained a voice. This is largely because of science(with a lower case s). Science has given it backing. Science doesn't say atheism is true it just says many religious ideas are false. And because science is so powerful and visible in our daily lives, religious societies are having a harder and harder time refuting it. On the other hand, religion still is a very powerful force in our country and many others. To suggest that atheism is a bully, as some Christians do, is not paying attention to history. 

Anonymous 2- There is a difference between a 'positive' view denying the existence of a deity and a 'negative' view which holds that the existence of a deity cannot be supported solely by rational argumentation. My father was an ‘atheist’ in this latter sense; however, he used the term loosely. He would be just as happy to call himself an ‘agnostic;’ -- it simply didn’t matter to him because he thought question of whether there is a god was, from a dialectical materialist point of view, immaterial (pun intended. ) I am most intrigued by people who assert ‘positively’ that there is no god. With such atheists I have had most illuminating conversations. In the end, though, it seems to me that ontological debates reduce to duelling tautologies. Yet the very fact that such tautologies exist fascinates me no end. It says more about human intellection than it does about any being exterior to human experience, but epistemology is one of my favourite studies. 

Me- Atheism is a term of belief, not knowledge. I hold both the first and the second view you state. Neither of which claim absolute knowledge. Atheism is a claim of belief or rather lack of it. I believe there is no god and I believe that rational evidence also doesn't support a belief in it.  What you are talking about is the difference between gnostic and agnostic. Gnostics claim knowledge, agnostics do not. You will find many atheists if not most, including myself, to be agnostic, although not all. Most Christians on the other hand would be in the gnostic category. None of this, however, proves that atheism is a religion.

Calling atheism a religion is just a way of saying, "See! Your basis of belief is no more subjective or rational than ours!". It is flat out wrong however. I point out in the argument above that not believing in God is to religion as not collecting stamps is to a hobby. Anonymous tries to refute this by saying that there could be people who incorporate not collecting stamps into some sort of anti-stamp club therefore making it a hobby. What he doesn't see here is that yes, that would be considered a hobby just as incorporating atheism into doctrine of a religious type makes it part of a religion. And he points to this in his next response giving some kinds of Buddhism and Jainism as examples of religions that are atheistic in nature. The difference is that THEY ARE RELIGIONS! Atheism is not a religion. Incorporating atheism into a religion then makes that religion an atheistic religion. It looks like this:

ATHEISM= NOT RELIGION

ATHEISM+RELIGION= RELIGION

There is a popular atheist saying that goes something like, "Christians are atheists to all other gods. We just go one step further". Not believing in Zeus is not a religion. Not believing in Vishnu is not a religion. Unless, of course, part of your religious doctrine says "you shall worship no other gods before me". Now you've got a religion on your hands. See the difference?

The Making Of A Skeptical Pumpkin

We decided to carve a pumpkin this year. We found some great Carl Sagan Templates here. Apparently Sagan is a popular pumpkin choice. I guess a scientist would be a pretty spooky idea for a Jack'O Lantern to some. You know, using evidence to support ideas and all. The carving was not as difficult as it seems but I found that if you just worked and 8 hour shift lifting heavy things then it is not a good idea to hunch over a pumpkin for two hours. 

  

  

We got our pumpkin from a northwest suburb in Chicago. From their website it looked like a fun, adventurous(for a school day) place to frolic in a field of glorious orange globes. We were sorely disappointed however. They have an exhibit there called animal land which we expected to be something like a petting zoo with farm animals. We should have delved deeper into the website. Instead what we paid to see was a collection of exotic animals kept in cages, some far to small and in no way mimicking a natural habitat. Cages of sleepy tiger cubs, bears, shivering kangaroo, large agitated wild birds, cages that were mere feet away from taunting children and oblivious adults all enclosed in a large tent that we hoped was adequate to keep the cold weather out. We stopped after the first tent. There were two more. 

We also saw a mechanical dinosaur very slowly eat pumpkins with a climax that was comparable to the point when paint actually dries. The corn maze left something to be desired... that is unless you are three feet tall. I believe the fun of a maze comes from the fact that is it hard to find your way out. Standing two feet above the highest stalks surely prevents this.  Later, my girlfriend discovered that the pumpkins were shipped from New Mexico.

So, if you like seeing pent up wild animals, the least impressive corn maze this side of Chicago and buying an out of state pumpkin you could have bought at ALDI for half the price, go to Goebberts.

"Slut" Is Another Word For Control

 The women's liberation movements of the last century have made tremendous strides but have yet to squeeze their way into the smallest aspects of everyday life and thinking. Slut shaming is one of these aspects.

Is there a problem morally with having multiple sex partners? Is there a problem with any sort of sexual promiscuity? As long as it is practiced safely and without deception, in my opinion, no. A big fat no. This is the same problem some people, often you will find men to be the root cause, have with the gay rights movement in a sense. They want to control who gets to have sex with who. Men may have sex with only women otherwise you are a "faggot". Women may have sex with only a minimal number of men and must be in relationships with these men or risk becoming "sluts". Straight men, however, can have sex with as many women as they wish and only seem all the more virile for it. (Notwithstanding cheating, which seems to be universally abhorrent.) I'm generalizing here and I realize that many people don't share these beliefs, but still too large a number of people do. I see it everyday on television, movies, on facebook and in day to day conversations with friends, coworkers, and relatives. Hardly a day goes by where I don't hear some form of shaming towards promiscuous women or women perceived to be promiscuous. It is most often not even realized to be blatant sexism. It's a double standard that the majority of people seem to be comfortable with without even a second thought. Oh, they know it's a double standard, but to most it's an acceptable one. Why is this? Well, that answer is seemingly obvious. Sexism has been ubiquitous throughout human history and men have been in the privileged position. Shedding sexism means men, who've never as a whole, really had to deal with any serious level of sexism, will have to let go of certain privileges that they've had since the day they were born. We, as men have had them so long we feel that we are entitled to them. Women have been subjected to sexism for so long that some may think are deserving of it, or that it is harmless.

"Slut" is a word used to control women into behaving the way men think they should behave. Is there a comparably ubiquitous word for promiscuous men? Maybe "man-slut" fills this role, but it is obviously derivative, holds no real power over men and is often viewed as comedic. Nobody looks down on a man-slut. You don't hear men called "whores" and "sluts" with the vitriol that is often used against women for having multiple sex partners. Everyone knows this is a double standard but props it up anyway. There is no justification for it. If you have one I would like to hear it . I'm certain that I have been guilty of slut shaming in the past but I will be no longer to the best of my ability.

Russian Blasphemy Law

Russia is considering a new law that would curtail blasphemy:

The religious offense law was drafted in the wake of performance group Pussy Riot's “punk prayer” in Moscow’s central cathedral earlier this year. Members of the group were sentenced to two years in a penal colony under the broad charge of hooliganism for a lack of more specific legislation. The bill calls for up to three years’ imprisonment for disrespecting religious sensibilities and is currently being discussed in the Duma.

 The law seeks to punish, with up to a three year prison sentence, those who "disrespect religious sensibilities" which no doubt means the religious sensibilities of the orthodox church specifically. In the town of Rostov-on-Don the musical "Jesus Christ Superstar" is being cancelled thanks to the complaints of 18 individuals who say the musical is presenting the image of Christ incorrectly. It seems the production is shutting down rather than risking possible jail time for upsetting the delicate sensibilities of the orthodox church.

I visited Rostov-On-Don(my gf's hometown) in the spring of this year. It's not a very big city though certain areas have some charm and the river is very pretty. The orthodox cathedral is a central part of many Russian cities and Rostov is no different with a fairly large cathedral located at it's center. We had a great time exploring many of these cathedrals in both St. Petersburg(where exist some of the most beautiful religious architecture I've yet seen in my limited travels) and in the area near Rostov. The Church On Spilt Blood in Saint Petersburg is particularly magnificent with incredibly intricate mosaics depicting biblical stories. My favorites were the miracles performed by Jesus and this one in particular of him walking on water.

I resisted the urge to giggle at this early version of a super hero

Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union there has been a great resurgence of open religiosity in the country and many new restoration projects for the churches that survived the U.S.S.R. The problem it now seems is not a suppression of the church but of a suppression of any belief that doesn't support it.

There is a small town called Novocherkassk near Rostov-on-Don with a beautiful Byzantine cathedral located at its heart. We decided to take a look. It was a long train ride through the country side of gorgeous farmland and gleaming green hills and a good trudge up a steeply inclined road on a hot sunny day to visit, but well worth it. Let me stem the objections you may have: Yes, I am an atheist but I am also capable of recognizing impressive architecture. Religion has held sway over nearly all cultures throughout history an as a result of it's monopoly has created some of the greatest works of art. I also have a certain fascination with modes of thought, beliefs, culture and art based upon decidedly irrational ideas. I was excited to see as much of it as I could

Respectfully admiring the cathedral

When we made it to the church we took numerous obligatory photos and headed inside where we proceeded to take more obligatory photos. I spent much of the trip trying not to look American but that camera in my hand was surely an obvious sign. The translation guide sticking out of my back pocket wasn't helping either. We spent maybe fifteen or twenty minutes quietly taking pictures and doing some un-obnoxious gawking before the three of us sat down on some pews in front of the alter. Toma, a friend of the family, facing one way, and my girlfriend and I facing the other. As it turned out, the position of our faces in relation to the alter angered God and upon leaving we were sternly scolded by a couple of nuns who carried the righteous wrath of the heavenly father within them. That was perhaps the one instance during our trip I was glad I didn't speak Russian.

As we were leaving I snickered to my girlfriend, "If only they knew how truly heathenous we really are". They might have had a fit.

I bring this story up given this potential new blasphemy law. If that law had been in place then we might have been  arrested. At least it's not outside the realm of possibility given the vague language that has been proposed and given the charges against Pussy Riot:

Russian lawmakers are calling for jail sentences of up to three years for anyone guilty of offending religious feelings

So, offending the "feelings" of those of the orthodox church will be a crime. This is precisely the reason for the First Amendment in the U.S. and why atheists continue to make a stink over even the most minor infractions lest we slide towards something resembling this law.

I've heard it pointed out that when a religion needs government coercion in order to maintain itself it is already a failed idea.

Blasphemy Day: Free Speech Zone.

It's that day that is no different than any other day- Blasphemy Day. However in the spirit of it here are a few words I wrote some months ago:

Warning: Free Speech Zone 

Ideas are offensive. Every idea is offensive to someone somewhere. Whenever you express an idea publicly be prepared to be offended. Be prepared to defend your idea or walk away. You do not have the right not to be offended. All ideas must be open to criticism no matter how sacred if we are to live in a free society. Also, when someone criticizes your idea they are not disrespecting your rights, and they are not necessarily criticizing you. Calling an idea absurd, stupid, bad, idiotic, etc. is not the same as calling the person who expresses it those things. Good, smart people can have bad ideas. Vice versa.  

Note: There are places where this is generally not appropriate; the workplace, and in some limited sense, public school where a free exchange of ideas is only acceptable as long as it is not threatening, hateful, or disruptive of the learning process.

 ... and because for me no Blasphemy day is complete without a little Sagan:

Facebook Credulity

Foods that look like the organs they supposedly treat:

 First off, this is an obvious case of pareidolia. Does a sliced carrot look like an eye? Well sort of but it also looks, upon my first glance, like an anus. Does it prevent or treat rectal cancer? Not to be crass(that's fun of course) but it makes the point. Walnuts may look sort of like brains, but they also resemble testis. What does this tell us about the benefits they afford to them? Apparently nothing. How many foods can we find that resemble organs or body parts but don't do much to aid or improve function? Is this any different than eating rhino horn because the horn vaguely resembles a penis? A banana also shares this resemblance or a carrot for that matter.

The title suggests that this is God's way of telling us which foods are good for us. As if this in itself is evidence for God. Is this really evidence for God? If it is, God sure has a confusing way of getting ideas across. Couldn't he just have implanted the idea in our brain rather than making us do all this research on these fruits and vegetables so that we find that some that resemble organs also have nutrients that benefit those organs and then use post hoc reasoning to decide that's why they looked like those organs in the first place. Whew! Thanks God!

Symphony Of Science Does Climate Change

A new Symphony Of Science just released covering a more specific topic this time around:

This is one of those science topics, like evolution, that has become a controversial political issue whereas in the scientific community(you know, the community that discovers things using that method that is the only reliable way we have of actually knowing things) is not controversial at all.