I have been tempted to address in detail one of the various times which underline how online debates can be particularly tedious, leading to some stress on my part, since bad logic and sloppy (especially if it has an attitude) reasoning bothers me. It being my nature -- my mind works in a certain way, certain things annoy me, and yes, you get into this sort of thing, perhaps a bit too much. But, since it seemed a bit too self-interested, I decided to avoid the matter.
Oh well. I referenced a debate on the question of "religion." Arising from a sarcastic reply (a new list) to Dahlia Lithwick (Slate) and her list of the top ten civil liberty violations, there were various responses that underlined how (let's be nice) sloppy the list really was. One item on the new list was the canard that the state somehow promotes secularism as a religion. A reply, which was made before, noted that "atheism" could not be a religion, it being the lack thereof. I find this problematic. The word to me means the lack of a belief in God. This does not mean a lack of a religion. As someone who agreed with me, appreciated, and has more education on the matter than I noted:
Belief in god is only a tiny part of religion. Human beings are hard wired to -require- belief. That does not have to be belief in a god, but belief in a "something" bigger than ourselves, be it god, political movement, or "faith" in reason is a fundamental human requirement right below oxygen. Beyond that religion gives us language to make sense of the world, social structures to aid us in our lives, ritual actions to reinforce the linguistics and theodicy. In order for atheism to replace religion, it has to become it. Which is why replacing religion with atheism is such a fundamentally moronic undertaking.
As noted, an article on a particularly fervent brand of atheists was cited. The person is a self-proclaimed atheist. An atheists in the article, Sam Harris (who has a couple books out, one which I skimmed), spoke of a "religion of reason." The article was written by someone who basically admitted to be an atheist, but didn't really think it productive to rub it in people's faces as much as those discussed wished. Said person also didn't find it troublesome to consider the fact atheists can have a "religion." This upsets some people, since they think of "religion" as belief in some supernatural entity or something. Thus, the long replies to my brief challenge of R. on the thread.
One can glance at them, though they are tedious, to get a flavor. As you can see, I had the same desire to underline my view was the correct one, even if it took time to reply to longggggg posts. Others find it less productive, but there is some value in such mental exercises. This is so even given the tedious nature of the arguments. For instance, I was told to "ask an atheist" what the term meant. But, apparently, I have to ask the right sort. Likewise, apparently, it was supposed to be important (since it was repeated countless times) that atheism is in response to theism. Now, as I wrote, it can very well be in response to the concept of theism. No matter. It is unclear why something in response to something else cannot be a "religion."
[What is particularly ironic is that the person underlines a concern for using terms accepted by the group at issue, but changes gears to commonly understood terminology when atheists aren't involved. Buddhists, so noted, have "no gods." But, since "theism" and "theology" is thought -- however wrongly, just as commonly understood, "religion" is/was often thought as Western religions (if not Christianity) alone -- as belief per se, we should consider them "theists." The fact that the word refers to god, notwithstanding. This seems a bit arrogant, doesn't it? Buddhists are supposed to be put in our cubbyholes, even if it confuses their basic beliefs, namely, no gods!]
Other tropes were used. I was called patronizing -- I guess I come off that way at times, but comments like "try again" in response to my argument is sort of patronizing. Showing why it's useful not to bring such matters up, I at one point noted that it appeared to me that at some points the person was letting passion interfere with reason. This is often a problem, but if you bring it up, as happened here, it is taken personally and you are challenged. Lesson learnt.*
It is claimed I did not answer a question. I answered it. And, there is the annoying avoiding of what is said. I noted that perhaps bare atheism is not much of a religion. After all, is just believing in God (it might be a religious belief) much of one? But, yes, with more, it can be. Thus, repeated emphatic (reference to imaginary dinosaurs, Santa Claus, how I'm like creationist scientists, help those who promote atheists as apostates, etc.) statements on how just absence of belief is not religion was somewhat besides the point.
This is why people are tempted to reply thusly:
I know you thought you were a special snowflake because you read something once about a flying spaghetti monster. But it's just another cult, with particularly lousy production values.
Horse, water, done now.
More talking past each other though one has to take a bit of sarcasm online, it comes with the territory. Anyway, the general tenor of the posts underline my sentiments, their very religious fervor, that is. I guess that and the fact that (protestations that I am just not important enough to get an emotional rise out of aside) the person clearly was a bit stressed at my apparently cluelessness as well. Misery likes company. But, heck, I know -- at the end -- s/he had as much fun as I had. Thus, since I sometimes know when to give up, I ended with "you can have the last word." And, did not read the one that inevitably came (another annoyed title, that clearly did not suggest any emotional sentiment on his/her part), since I would be tempted to reply. :)
I think it useful to discuss the point, since it comes with the territory. It also gets it out of my system. Now, let me check out this mid-60s degree weather, and hope the Colts and Dallas lose. Choke choke!
[And more: Weather is nice. BTW, what is really the net value of using circular reasoning to convince people that atheism isn't a religion, since atheists don't support religion? A rather questionable approach unless as suggested there is some evangelistical flavor to it. The claim often is that the state (or federal courts) established atheism as a state religion. If they did, it would be a problem. They don't. For instance, not teaching creation science does not deny the existence of God. It avoids entanglement into the question and underlines faith based approaches do not belong in science class.
The attempt to narrowly define "religion" might have constitutional consequences as recognized by various writers. For instance, my overall concept of religion reflects Ronald Dworkin, who notes "we may describe people's beliefs about the inherent value of human life, beliefs deployed in their opinions about abortion, as essentially religious beliefs." Such "beliefs" ("convictions") "are just as pervasive, just as foundational to moral personality, as the convictions of a Catholic or Moslem." Freedom's Law. Such an understanding of "sacred" and such is held by many, and I find it arrogant to deny their approach because some unclear number of some group might find problems with it.]
---
* I recently annoyed a conservative, who I thought was putting forth sloppy reasoning, and refused to answer my criticisms. Said person also quickly dismissed me. I tweaked him/her a bit, since it honestly pissed me off a tad, and this set off a reply ... that again did not really respond to my points. Eventually, I was told that I clearly was just a liberal propagandist sort and not really worth reading, but (saving grace! whew!) I would not be blocked. Wah wah.
Projection. I am not neutral, but yes, by now, it is a bit hard to dismiss me so cavalierly. Such mentalities are often not worth reading, especially if it will only lead to bad replies, since they are written by close-minded sorts that will dismiss you since you are the problem, not they.