Is American Atheism Evolving Towards A Cult?

[amused]

To Seth, for this argument, hurtful = harmful in the previous.

(Did the edit timeout change? It went so quickly!)

[Exi5tentialist]

belief in God is inextricably linked to conditioning under capitalism.

I see no evidence, either in the record or in your post, that this is remotely the case. Capitalism is an economic theory that describes the actions of free markets. It's neither a system of government nor a religion. It describes how economics works most effectively, nothing more.

No well you won't get the evidence you want from any one post, or even a few. Changing your ideological position isn't that easy. However I would like to take the opportunity to dissent from the notion that capitalism 'describes how economics works most effectively, nothing more', but I think you're on hiding to nothing trying to get to the bottom of that argument in a discussion about American atheism becoming a cult.

Proofs, evidence... let's leave all that to the concrete thinkers shall we? We can be more flexible and exchange opinions if you like. My opinion is that capitalism is an artificially-maintained, authoritarian economic system. To maintain its authoritarian nature requires it to engulf entire cultures and impose values on those cultures that will have the effect of maintaining the dominance of the system. In this way, capitalism is a political system as well as an economic one. A major part of capitalist culture in the West is a kind of paternalistic rationalism, which I would include all the patriarchal religions in alongside the New Atheism. The procedure in this kind of politics is to make ostensibly rationalistic arguments which turn out to be rather superficial, then quickly resort to abuse when rationalism fails. For example in the new atheism, theists are proved to be stupid sky-daddy worshippers or just bin-liner wearers or faith-heads - all denigrating language which is supposed to be justified by the sheer stupidity of believing something an atheist doesn't.

Pitched against this paternalistic rationalism is a more egalitarian philosophy based on the self-determination of the individual. I firmly believe that the right to freedom of religion codified in the human rights declarations arose solely from this philosophy, which unfortunately only seems to gain ascendency when the number of people who have been hurt can be counted in thousands or millions.

Fortunately for me, my belief in egalitarian self-determination coincides with my political beliefs about the long-term decline of capitalism and the need for a better-structured economic system than can be offered by a system which drives entire economies into overwhelming debt at every opportunity. For you Seth there is a tension, because although you are a libertarian towards the individual, you subordinate your politics to the authoritarianism of capitalism, and this creates an unresolvable conflict.

[apophenia]

belief in God is inextricably linked to conditioning under capitalism.

My opinion is that capitalism is an artificially-maintained, authoritarian economic system. To maintain its authoritarian nature requires it to engulf entire cultures and impose values on those cultures that will have the effect of maintaining the dominance of the system.

"Harumph! Harumph!"

[Seth]

Here's where I think religion is hurtful.

There are, interpretations, of religious writings that justify (with the right interpretation) the abuse of non-believers.

There are interpretations of secular writings that not only justify, but actually call for the abuse of believers and non-believers alike. Stalinism, for example, or Maoism. That interpretations of writings may lead to abuse does not mean that the underlying writings are either inherently evil (though some are) or that all persons who subscribe to writings interpret them in ways that abuse others.

Your argument is therefore the fallacy of the appeal to the consequences of a belief. You argue that we must hold belief in religious writings to be bad because if we do not, bad things will happen. It's also an example of the fallacy of [url+http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... cause.html]Questionable Cause.[/url] Because some people associate religious writings with abuse does not mean that all instances of religious writings are used to perpetrate abuse.

This is pretty classic tribal behavior, and it's a very human thing to do.

True.

Where it becomes hurtful is that it causes divisions within the virtual tribes we call nations. The so-called 'culture wars' being a prime example in the US. A lot of money, energy, and time is continuously wasted in the effort to keep creationism out of the public school system science classes. That waste is hurtful.

Again, you present the logical fallacy of appeal to the consequences of a belief. You argue that we must believe religion is wrong because if we don't, bad things happen, such as the teaching of creationism in public schools. This is also a fallacious appeal to fear because you argue that teaching creationism in public schools is something to be feared.

If there is waste, it's waste caused by those who seem to fear that science is not up to the task of debunking creationism in a stand-up fight where both sides are presented as neutrally as possible and students are permitted to make up their own minds which argument is most persuasive.

And, if I am in a fight against another tribe of another nation, and the person beside me suddenly aligns himself with the enemy because they are both from the same religious tribe, then I am hurt.

How is that any different than the same person doing the same thing for political reasons?

The US Muslim soldier who killed some of his fellow US soldiers being a good example of the issue. (I'm not picking on Muslims specifically, it's just a good example.)

And how many Christian soldiers have "fragged" their own for religious reasons? Again, you present the appeal to fear and the appeal to the consequences of a belief fallacies. While it is true that religion is sometimes used as a motivation for violence and abuse, surely you can acknowledge that this is not even close to being universally true, or even true in the lives of the majority of people who hold religious beliefs. The actual numbers of religious zealots who factually use religion as an excuse to harm others, even when it comes to Islam, is quite small, compared to the billions of people who practice their faiths peaceably and to the benefit of society.

The founding fathers recognized the divisive nature of religious tribes within national tribes in the continual wars that raged across Europe at the time, when every time the new ruler of a nation had a different religion than their predecessor and the pogroms began. Hence, the separation of church and state.

Actually, you misunderstand our history. The Founders were both religious people and acutely aware of the evils of government-sponsored religion as well as government suppression of religion. That is why they created a government based not on secularism or atheism, but on religious pluralism. The United States was founded as a nation where ALL peaceable expressions of religion are welcomed and protected, and where NO particular religion can gain the official sanction of government, to the detriment of other religions.

The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause do indeed create a "wall of separation" between church and state, but it's not a wall that excludes religion from the public square, it's a wall that surrounds GOVERNMENT, like a prison wall, with the express intent of keeping government from interfering in the religious lives of the People. That is what the Free Exercise Clause primarily stands for, while the Establishment Clause is what keeps the government from using its power to create a state-sanctioned religion that can suppress other religions or command obedience to the state religion. Both clauses working together are a bulwark against government intrusion into the religious lives and practices of the People, who are free to express their religious beliefs in any peaceable manner in any reasonable time, place or manner that they choose.

But we see in the aggressive Christianist right wing, an insistence that there is no separation between church and state.

So what? They are a tiny fraction of the People, and they have a right to espouse their opinions, however radical they may be, and seek redress from their government, just as you do. But government is constrained by the First Amendment and neither can, nor will do what either right-wing or left-wing religious zealots wish. That's what the First Amendment exists to prevent.

The fact is that the vast majority of citizens understand the necessity and desirability of keeping government out of religion and religion out of government, and factually speaking, what you posit is simple fear-mongering with no real basis in fact.

Sure Perry and Brownback attended a large evangelical prayer meeting and spoke about the need for a return to Christian principles in government, but no other politicians attended, and as is usually the case, zealotry from either side of the spectrum does not generally go over well with the People, who are largely moderate, center-right, and interested in political honesty and efficiency in government, not building a theocracy. That some radicals may call for a theocracy, be it a Christian one or an Islamic one (and they do) does not mean that it will come to pass, or that religion itself is a threat to the secular nature of our government.

So there's a continual waste of money, energy, and time trying to keep this nation a cohesive secular tribe. That waste is hurtful.

[/quote]

It's not a waste, and the US is not, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be (hopefully) a "cohesive secular tribe." Religious plurality is an excellent way to ensure that no one ideology, be it religious or political, becomes dominant, because the competing interests of religious groups, as they affect politics, guarantee a vigorous debate and rational course of action.

Suppressing religion in favor of secularism is a sure way to increase the amount of abuse by government, because the most difficult thing on earth to suppress is someone else's religious faith. Stalin tried it and had to kill 40 million people to try to effectuate a secular society, and he and his ilk failed miserably. One of the very first things to re-emerge in Russia and the Soviet satellite states upon the collapse of the USSR was religion. Some of the first buildings retaken and restored were the churches that had been co-opted by the Soviets for "secular" governmental use. They were restored very, very quickly after the machinery of religious suppression fell apart, and the Orthodox Catholic church is having a remarkable resurgence in Russia and elsewhere.

So, the real waste comes from those who try to suppress religion in favor of atheistic secularism.

The Constitution is well up to the task of managing the tension between individual religion and government. It's worked for more than 200 years, and there's no reason it won't continue to work as intended.

[Exi5tentialist]

Hang on, I'm thinking...

No I still can't figure out what apophenia is driving at. Somebody explain, it's late.

[amused]

Seth -

I appreciate the time that you took to make your last response. But, I am not willing to participate in the current forum fad of dissecting a post sentence by sentence, and then responding in kind. Nor am I impressed with the "you're just forwarding the 'X' fallacy argument" as if that assertion was an end statement.

So, to make it easier on both of us, I'll put my argument in a single sentence, and then point to an example.

Belief in any religion is harmful to us all because it generates false divisions which in turn generates animosities that would not otherwise exist.

Example:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/zingularity ... -atheists/

I say kill them all and let them see for themselves that there is a God.
KILL THEM.
These people are the scum of the earth.
Can we start killing them now?
Few groups are filled with more hatred than atheists.
Nail them to that cross.

Note that those words are coming from the comments section at Fox News, not a fringe group of people.

[Seth]

Seth -

I appreciate the time that you took to make your last response. But, I am not willing to participate in the current forum fad of dissecting a post sentence by sentence, and then responding in kind.

Then perhaps you're in the wrong forum.

Nor am I impressed with the "you're just forwarding the 'X' fallacy argument" as if that assertion was an end statement.

It is an end statement regarding that assertion. Your job now is to amend your statement so that it's not an example of a logical fallacy and provide some reasoning as to why what you are asserting is true and valid. I've given you counter arguments in each case that provide opportunity for response if you're up to it.

So, to make it easier on both of us, I'll put my argument in a single sentence, and then point to an example.

Belief in any religion is harmful to us all because it generates false divisions which in turn generate animosities that would not otherwise exist.

Example:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/zingularity ... -atheists/

I say kill them all and let them see for themselves that there is a God.
KILL THEM.
These people are the scum of the earth.
Can we start killing them now?
Few groups are filled with more hatred than atheists.
Nail them to that cross.

Note that those words are coming from the comments section at Fox News, not a fringe group of people.

This is an example of the fallacy of Biased Sample in which you conclude that because sample S (a single entry in a blog) is taken from population P (all 5 billion people of faith) and your conclusion C, that religion is bad, is based on that single example.

I could easily find you a thousand similar condemnations and attacks on people of religion by atheists, some of them being members of this forum, and many of them being members of both RatSkep and RDF, and I could draw the same fallacious conclusion using the same fallacious logic.

Your argument is vacuous because any set of beliefs and practices, religious or otherwise, can cause division that would not otherwise exist. The amount of violence associated with soccer teams far exceeds the amount of violence perpetrated by Christians and Muslims rioting anywhere except perhaps in the Middle East. So, shall we ban soccer teams?

In point of fact, religion is one of the social influences that throughout history has REDUCED the amount of division and violence in the world simply by generating a commonality of belief among diverse people. That is one of the primary purposes of religion, as a mediator of social behavior, in fact.

Tribalism is far more dangerous overall than organized religion, as we see in the Balkans, where the Serbs and Croats have been fighting a tribal war for centuries. It was Christianity that drew many of the tribes of the Middle East together under one religion and put a stop to such tribal warfare.

Then Mohammed came along and did the same thing, by rather less peaceful means, with other tribes, bringing them together under one tent of religion and, at least internally, bringing peace to all Muslims...until he died and schisms erupted between differing sects over who should rightfully succeed Mohammed.

Religion is, and always has been a strong stabilizing influence in almost every culture that has ever existed, and those few secular cultures that have emerged, have failed miserably and killed a hundred million people or more in the process.

You'll have to do better than toss more fallacies around if you expect to win the debate I'm afraid.

[amused]

Religion IS tribalism.

[Seth]

Religion IS tribalism.

No, tribalism is tribalism. Religion is something else.

[amused]

Religion IS tribalism.

No, tribalism is tribalism. Religion is something else.

How convenient. And wrong.

Religion IS tribalism in its worst incarnation and is thereby destructive and harmful to the comity of all of humanity.

[Robert_S]

Can we really call those communist societies secular? Don't they have one true indispensable gods leaders?

[Seth]

Religion IS tribalism.

No, tribalism is tribalism. Religion is something else.

How convenient. And wrong.

Religion IS tribalism in its worst incarnation and is thereby destructive and harmful to the comity of all of humanity.

History demonstrates the fallacy of this claim I'm afraid.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

ORLY?

[amused]

Religion IS tribalism.

No, tribalism is tribalism. Religion is something else.

How convenient. And wrong.

Religion IS tribalism in its worst incarnation and is thereby destructive and harmful to the comity of all of humanity.

History demonstrates the fallacy of this claim I'm afraid.

Um, no. The entirety of human history is a pretty good record of religious tribalism. The Old Testament is 'the' playbook for it.

[Svartalf]

Religion IS tribalism.

No, tribalism is tribalism. Religion is something else.

How convenient. And wrong.

Religion IS tribalism in its worst incarnation and is thereby destructive and harmful to the comity of all of humanity.

History demonstrates the fallacy of this claim I'm afraid.

How so? When religion was not a motive for war, or a marker for enemy tribes, it was a tool of conquest itself.