h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

We're not talking about a specific theism. But you're mistaken in the belief that we're discussing all theisms. We're discussing theisms in general, noting specific trends. And there is a definite trend of fear in religion. Consider:

- Western theologies all contain a fear element. Jews and Muslims are specifically taught to fear their god. Some Christian texts believe their god won't hurt them specifically, but they all believe in a frightening apocalypse.

- Vietnam's religion includes a New Year's celebration in which they pour red porridge all around their houses in order to frighten off evil spirits.

- The deeply religious sherpas in the Himalayas will not take an expedition up to the major peaks without observing all of the formalities, which include the spinning of prayer wheels and the blessing of ropes and crampons. Failure to make the proper offerings, they believe, will doom the expedition.

- Chinese New Year celebrations, with the dragons and the fireworks and everything, are specifically designed to frighten off evil spirits.

I could go on and on, but you get the picture. The argument can be made that some theisms, practiced by a minority of people, are not based at least in part on fear. However, *in general*, theisms tend toward fear in large part. And atheism has absolutely no fear. Therefore, your statement "Theism is not based in fear any more than atheism" is just plain wrong. And that statement was the point of this entire line of dialogue.


"You're assuming that that desire (positive) can exist away from fear (negative)." - You are assuming that positive and negative are always equal. The positive of absolute power is much more powerful than the negative of losing that power... after all, the individual has been powerless before. Women stay in abusive relationships because they fear loneliness more than they fear their man, or because they fear a his reaction to a seperation more than they fear the current situation. Fear and desire are all relative terms, and exist in different quantities in every situation. I've already demonstrated that desire would be overwhelmingly powerful in the Albania situation. You've tried to demonstrate that fear would be just as overwhelmingly powerful, but I'm not convinced.

The structure I'm describing? What structure? People read things for themselves, and make their own conclusions. Then they get together with other people and share what they've read, what they understand. That's how we challenge our conclusions, to keep ourselves honest. But there is no structure for this kind of thing. And there is no famous leader. Some people write down the things they understand. Someone else comes along and reads it, and recommends it to others. But none of the publishers or writers are making any great amount of money. And there are no "sole authority" figures. We don't have an Aleister Crowley or L. Ron Hubbard. That's because the belief (or nonbelief) of atheism is not a vision of one man. Of course, it isn't even a vision, which explains that. It's reality, and everyone has a different theory on reality. Books that could be considered "atheist" are usually just books on other subjects (philosophy, religion, etc.) that approach the subject from an atheist perspective. But just because I agree with the approach doesn't mean I'll agree with the conclusion. But I'm almost always assured of taking *something* out of them, even if it wasn't what the author intended. The book that sparked my deconversion to atheism was trying to advance the theory that the bloodline of Jesus survives today, and that there is an international conspiracy to restore his direct descendant to power as a ruler of mankind. I took atheism away from that book, but I think their conspiracy theory is an elaborate hoax.

"The structure I'm describing? What structure? People read things for themselves, and make their own conclusions. Then they get together with other people and share what they've read, what they understand. That's how we challenge our conclusions, to keep ourselves honest. But there is no structure for this kind of thing." You don't think that's a structure? Semantics. It's as structured socially as most audience cults. And even when they think they are being rational, people can reinforce each other's stereotypes rather than challenge them. Which is how dogmas start.

"You are assuming that positive and negative are always equal. The positive of absolute power is much more powerful than the negative of losing that power... after all, the individual has been powerless before." Au contraire. In some cases a personality might see this as making the fear of powerlessness *more* compelling (I've worked my way up from the street and I'm damned if I'm going back without a fight.) Of course it depends on the personality; some would be much more relaxed about losing power -- but I think they'd be much less likely to become desperate or paranoid, don't you? Whereas folks who greatly feared powerlessnes, would be much easier to tempt into doing any thing to increase or maintain their power. Frankly, it's just as I said; quantity of desire and fear are directly related.

What you properly should have said was that theisms (plural)are based on fear, not that Theism is based on fear. This is not a pedantic point. As I pointed out earlier, Theism is simply the assertion that god exists, theisms are the worldviews that incorporate that assertion.

Even if you deny this definition, comparing atheism and "theism in general" makes no sense whatever. You keep insisting that Atheism is only the single assertion "There is no God." Fair enough. Does it make sense to compare a single assertion to an entire set of worldviews, each of which is composed of many asertions? It would be much more logical to compare the various worldviews that incorporate non-belief in gods to the many worldviews that incorporate belief in gods.

"It's as structured socially as most audience cults." - If you're going to make this charge, you're going to have to back it up. You're going to have to show me how atheism is related to audience cults with a single spokesman, like Scientology or Satanism. It is the lack of a single spokesman that will eventually derail your argument, but I'll let you give it a try, first.

"In some cases a personality might see this as making the fear of powerlessness *more* compelling... Of course it depends on the personality; some would be much more relaxed about losing power" - Exactly my point. We cannot know what the balance of desire/fear was in the Albanian power grab, because it can vary widely from individual to individual. And without evidence, all we can do is guess. Guesswork does not qualify as an argument.

"Does it make sense to compare a single assertion to an entire set of worldviews, each of which is composed of many asertions?" - I don't know why you're asking me. You're the one who started making the general statements about atheism and theism... I just refuted them. But if you want to branch off, that's fine. Which theism would you like to compare to which atheist philosophy?

By the way, it is worth noting that theism has a plural (theisms) while atheism has none. So when comparing theism to atheism you can refer to many different theisms, as I have, but there is only one atheism to discuss.

Scientology is not an audience cult. Scientologists have Churches, an official headquarters, an official hierarchy, etc. Some satanic groups are audience cults, some are not. You missed the point, audience cults *don't* necessarily have a single spokesman.

"We cannot know what the balance of desire/fear was in the Albanian power grab, because it can vary widely from individual to individual. And without evidence, all we can do is guess. Guesswork does not qualify as an argument." Nice try. We know it must have been pretty high, relative to you or me, simply because they saw fit to ban entire religions. No serious attempt at conversion, no attempt at legal reform of religious rights, no serious attempt at collectivization. Just a ban. The communist government wasn't even in power long enough to make a useful attempt at those sort of programs, yet the ban took place. That's deduction, not guesswork. If you'd like to question the deduction, fine. But it is valid argument and must be taken seriously as such.

"I don't know why you're asking me. You're the one who started making the general statements about atheism and theism... I just refuted them." Ooooh, another nice try. I almost missed you dodging the issue there. The issue was whether it makes sense for you to refute my statements in that particular way. You're taking unfair advantage of the fact that there is apparently only one def. of atheism, but several def. of theism, only one of which is comparable to "atheism" in this context. Since your comments seem to suggest that you can't or won't understand the difference, I'll connect the dots for you: the interpretation of theism that runs along the lines of "the worldviews that incorporate belief in gods, in general" is the wrong one to use in this context because it is not directly analogous to atheism as you defined it. This is what is unoffically known as argument by useless analogy. It would make much more sense to define theism as "the isolated belief in the existence of a god or gods". Operative word being isolated, since atheism is the isolated non-belief in god.

Worldviews incorporating theism are theisms. Worldviews incorporating atheism are atheistic philosophies. Just semantics. (Actually, I think I have seen the word "atheisms" somewhere. Not in a dictionary, admittedly, but then I haven't yet seen "theisms" in a dictionary. The only reason I brought it up earlier is because I was pretty sure it's a word and I was attempting to be generous to you about your silly comparisons by showing how fine the separation between definitions can be.)