Atheism As A Religion

Posted by hermholland from Cardiff - Published on 07/07/2012 at 13:15
8 comments » - Tagged as Culture, History, Topical

Disclaimer: As with everything on theSprout, the views expressed in articles are those of the authors and not necessarily those of theSprout.

Before I begin, let me start by saying that I am not religious. However; this doesn’t make me an Atheist any more than not smoking would make me an anti-smoker (or non-smoker). I simply don’t smoke and have never done so, but I hold no intolerance towards smokers or judge them for their habit/addiction. If I were an anti-smoker, or non-smoker, then I would be opposed to the act of smoking. I am much the same when it comes to religion.

I’d like to begin by defining Atheism; Wikipedia describes it as follows:

“Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.”

Now this is quite a simple concept, which basically says that if you’re not religious then you’re an atheist. And, if you don’t include the ‘on-the-fence’ way of thinking, then that’s true; you’re either religious or you’re not. But, as I’ve already alluded to, there is a third option; Agnosticism. This is described as a simple indecision on the existence, or non-existence, of deities, and/or as an acknowledgement that human reason/understanding is currently incapable of comprehending whether or not any deities exist.

So let me take this opportunity to, contentedly, make a statement.

I am Herm Holland, and I am an agnostic,

When looking at religious beliefs I have always been uncertain. I have always struggled to believe in any religion, or accept any of them over the questions that my logic throws in the way. I have been open to religions and their ideologies, and have tried on more than one occasion to adhere to and accept religions on their own merits, with no successes. I sometimes envy religious people for the comfort their beliefs seem to provide, but I’ve never been able to join their ranks. And for most of my life, I thought that whether or not you believe in a deity, or deities, was the only question regarding Theism, Atheism, and Agnosticism.

Oh, how wrong I was.

As I’ve gotten older, and as I’ve understood more about religion, I’ve been shown that it’s not as simple as what deity/deities you believe in, but the details, guidelines, history/lore, and lifestyle that go along with each religion. For example, when looking at Christianity it is apparently not good enough to say whether or not you’re a Christian; there are all sorts of strains of Christianity that – essentially – believe in the same deity: God. Some of these are: Catholicism, Protestantism, Baptism, Evangelical, Church of England and so on. Even then there are some sub-strains, like Roman Catholic.

The problem with all of these different religions is that many religious people don’t treat other people of different religions with tolerance, which has resulted in holy wars, religious extremism, anti-Semitism, and so on. As with many people, this has always been something that really upsets me about religion, and remains a continuing deterrent against religion in addition to the simple “Do I or don’t I believe” question that’s already there.

Then there is the problem that religions are constantly trying to enlist more and more people to their cause. Sure, on the surface there is no problem with wanting people to agree with something you feel strongly about, but how many people have been told they’re going to Hell because they don’t believe? How many have been given leaflets saying much the same when idly going about their business? How many people’s privacy has been invaded by someone knocking on their door and preaching the same message at them? Bearing in mind that, in the Western world, “go to Hell” is an aggressive insult, as well as the fact that this is a threat of eternal suffering if you don’t agree with these religions.

There are many different examples of these sorts of problems I can give, of the intolerance, the fear mongering, the hypocrisy, the bigotry of religion, and I could be here for weeks talking about it. There are also tonnes of public figures or well-known works that preach this message too. A few examples of which are George Carlin, Richard Dawkins, and the Zeitgeist movie.

Wait, what? “Preach this message”? That can’t be right, let’s take a closer look at that.

In modern society, there has been a major change in the public image of Atheism. There seems to be a major war against religion that has been gaining strength more and more notably over the past decade or so.

Sure, the “Reason vs. Religion” battle is nothing new, but at least since the 9/11 tragedy there seems to be a much higher profile on the fight.

Whether its the cartoon image of Mohammed, the South Park ‘Super Friends’, the female artist wearing a Burqa on her head but no other clothes, public attacks on – or mockery of – religion seems to be more in vogue than ever before. It has become fashionable to attack, or make fun of, religion and the whole movement seems to be becoming a beast all of its own.

Regardless of the fact that Atheism is an easily definable position on belief and faith, the term has now become associated with something less about the lack of belief in any deities, and more about the active deposition and opposition to all types of Theism. It would be far more appropriate to call this movement ‘Antitheism’, a name that I will use for this movement from now on.

Put it this way; an easy way to describe some religions is as follows:

A belief structured around deity/deities, often including a mortal representative on Earth, with beliefs that guide moral and social etiquette, and provides guidelines therein, often documented within a textual symbol.

Broken down, then, there are four ingredients that can be used to describe many religions:

Deity/deities – Abstracted entity ordained as judge, jury, and executioner based on self-declared guidelines
Mortal representative – A human-identification figure that acts to define and demonstrate the guidelines and parameters for living
Moral and social guidelines – Dogmatic description of how people should live and how they should treat others
Textual symbol – A body of text that serves as a central point of reference for the above

A working example of this could easily be Christianity, which would fit these ingredients as follows: -

Deity/deities – God
Mortal representative – Jesus Christ, the Son of God
Moral & social guidelines – The 10 Commandments (and more)
Textual symbol – The Holy Bible

This, I believe, is a fairly clear way to depict some religions, but I will concede that it doesn’t apply to all religions. I also understand that it’s a very over-simplified way to look at religion. It is, however, good to demonstrate a point.

Antitheism is another example of a belief structure that fits this template, as disagreeable as this may be:

Deity/deities – Reason
Mortal representative – Richard Dawkins
Moral and social guidelines – To demonstrate intellectual and ethical superiority, and to attack Theism in general
Textual symbol – The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins

I’ve described a deity as an “Abstracted entity ordained as judge, jury, and executioner based on self-declared guidelines” this can easily apply to the logic, reason, and apparent common sense that antitheists have put on a golden throne (metaphorically speaking). I’ve dubbed this Antitheist ‘deity’ “Reason” (capital ‘R’).

On the coattails of the success of his literature, as well as any number of debates, speeches, and talks, Richard Dawkins has become a poster boy for Antitheism, and a spokesperson for Reason. Therefore he falls comfortably into the role of mortal representative for Antitheism.

It seems to be that the moral and social guidelines for Antitheism are the requirement to openly and frequently vocalise your intellectual and ethical superiority over religious people whilst also attempting to destroy the credibility of any and all religious beliefs.

One of the most highly acclaimed, highly praised, and highly discussed texts in the Antitheist library seems to be The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. There are many other books, as well as films, songs, and so on that could fit the bill for textual symbol, but none so praised, and almost worshipped, as The God Delusion. So this easily takes the place of textual symbol.

Even though technically Antitheism can’t count as a religion, based on the simple definition of religion requiring an actual deity/deities (and Antitheism’s opposition to exactly that) it is definitely a point of note how close Antitheism comes to being a religion without actually being one. And this becomes clearer as the comparison continues.

Before this comparison begins, I think it’s important to say that comparisons between Reason and any religious deities would be futile due, simply, to the fact that Science doesn’t have the answers to everything, as well as the fact that religion doesn’t provide any proof to any of its claims. And then, even on the surface, it’s obvious that Theism and Antitheism is going to differ in the deity front. Therefore there is no reason, or profit, in discussing this point.

Now that’s over with, I’ll carry on with the comparison.

Some of the main criticisms of Theism from Antitheists are that Theists push their beliefs down other peoples’ throats, they try and brainwash people into their cause, they promote bigotry and negative and hostile judgement towards people who believe differently and their beliefs are outdated and lack common sense.

All of these criticisms are reasonable where they are correct and appropriate, but before you cast stones you need to make sure you are without sin.

So to begin with, the first problem I listed was pushing your beliefs down other peoples’ throats.

As I’ve mentioned before, there are so many people preaching on the streets, going door to door, handing out leaflets, preaching on television, giving speeches and sermons, and this is the sort of forceful message-pushing that is being talked about.

What, then, would you class things like the Atheist Film Festivals, the movie Zeitgeist, the book The God Delusion, Evolution: The Musical, uncountable talks by Richard Dawkins and other pioneers of Reason, rants by comedians like George Carlin and Tim Minchin? There is so much internet propaganda about the arguments against Theism, and uncountable TV programs and literary works all preaching the Antitheistic message. It has become quite fashionable (mostly in the form of ‘memes’) to attack Theism and religious people.

The same methods are used by Antitheists, as much as the Theists they criticise, all in the name of brainwashing people to their cause.

Next is that Theism promotes bigotry, hostility, and negative judgement towards people of differing faiths. This is demonstrated by things like religious homophobia, Anti-Semitism, threats of damnation for those who worship other gods, and religion-based male supremacy.

Antitheism is at least as guilty of this same aggression toward the fabled ‘other people’ with their aggression towards Theism and Theists, often commenting on their inherent stupidity for being just what they are. Antitheists often talk about religion in a wholly derisive tone, designed to make anyone religious look like idiots. You only need to listen to Richard Dawkins replying to “fan mail” [Sub-Ed note: video contains swearing] to see that he’s throwing petrol on the fire set to burn him, or listen to George Carlin’s Religion is Bull**** rant, or to look at the myriad groups on Facebook that mock and look down upon religious people (a prime example being the Sexy Atheists group).

The last criticism in the list I’ve provided is that their beliefs are outdated and lack common sense. The simple fact that a lot of (if not most of) religions have beliefs that have barely changed for hundreds of years should be fairly indicative that they are outdated, but people can still identify with them just as much as people can with ancient Greek philosophers, or William Shakespeare. Even though when reading some of the theories of Socrates, or even far more recently Sigmund Freud, they can be absolutely laughable. Nevertheless they are still a large part of science and reason, as we know it. Just because something is old, that doesn’t mean it’s no longer relevant to modern life. In fact, it means that the ideas are strong enough to stand the many tests of time. And if religion is questionably dated, then Reason is at least as guilty of the same.

Then there is common sense. Note that this is common sense as dictated by Reason, and is about as admissible as judging the common sense of Judaism by the common sense of Islam. They are completely different beliefs and cultures, where no single side can absolutely be judged by the standards of another. Who is to say that Reason and science have the authority over the rest of the world?

Arguably, all of these points blur into obscurity when put up against the death count of people in the name of religion. I can’t argue with the fact that the amount of people who have died in the name(s) of one or more deities is absolutely atrocious, and I won’t. What I will say, though, is that these religions have had far more time (in far more brutal periods of human development) to conduct these atrocities than the Antitheists, and did so out of major intolerance for “other people” which, as I’ve already pointed out, the Antitheists are just as guilty of. If these followers of Reason don’t get their intolerance in check there will be danger of them causing the same sort of bloodshed that the targets of their criticisms have been responsible for.

It is worth noting, too, that religions sponsor countless charities, and causes, designed to help people, cultures, and so on that aren’t always subscribers to their beliefs. Regardless of their levels of success, this is an incredibly important point to remember; religions try to help people constantly. All this Antitheism seems to do is attack, criticise, and try to debunk religions without counterbalancing their negativity with any real charitable actions. You’ve got to wonder whether the death count for Antitheism would be as high (if not higher) if it had been around for as long as these religions have.

Of course, that idea is quite fantastical, hyperbolic even, but it does illustrate a point. And the point, simply, is that for all of its superiority, and claims that it is more ethical, logical, civilised, intelligent, and generally better than Theism; Antitheism is just as bad (if not worse for its blind hypocrisy) than it claims religion is.

I will not say that I agree with religion/Theism, its track record, or the hatred it encourages. The violence incited by religion is not ignorable, unforgivable, and one of the major reasons why I could not subscribe to any religious beliefs. I can, however, say almost exactly the same about Antitheism (changing only the term “religious beliefs”).

In closing, I’d like to return to the Smoking-Religion metaphor I used earlier, and leave you with a quote:

“How many non-smokers do we have here?

[You] bunch of whining little maggots...

... You obnoxious, self-righteous slugs.

Don’t take that wrong.

I’d quit smokin’ if I didn’t think I’d become one of you.

You are the worst advertisement for non-smoking, you know that?”

Bill Hicks – One Night Stand, HBO (1991)

Info � World, Europe, UK & Wales � Religion

Info � Health � Smoking and Alcohol � Smoking

Related Articles:

8 Comments – Post a comment

hisgirl210410

Commented 10 months ago - 12th July 2012 - 09:53am

Wow, you've really got me thinking with that one and you make very valid points which i agree with completly, im religious and yes religious people can be the worst for judging even when it says we shoudn't but athiests are just as bad even if they claim not to be.
I keep myself to myself and yes if you decide to attack that then i will stand up for what i believe but surely in a society of free thinking i should be alowed to believe what i want and not have it constantly questioned, i dont go around asking why someone is athiest or in a similar sense why someone is gay as it is there life and there desicion and in most cases has no impact on me.
One point i come back to that you have mentioned is about charity and the way i look at it is i'd rather have my belief and follow the bible as best i can to help others, some of the most amazing giving people i know are christians and have given their lives to help others, how can that be a bad thing? x

Stormer007

Commented 10 months ago - 12th July 2012 - 15:34pm

Not smoking, or not being religious doesn't automatically put you in the anti-smoking or anti-religious camp. If you don't smoke, you are a non-smoker. How anyone could argue this is beyond me. What is does not mean is that you are against smoking. I know plenty of non-smokers who are not against smoking. The same goes for religion.

I am an atheist. As are you. And so is everybody else on the planet. How can I be so sure? Do you believe in the existence of Zeus? Allah? Gaia? No? Well then, you are an atheist in the sense that you don't believe in those particular Gods. every Christian on the planet is an atheist. Simply towards other gods.

The problem with the term 'atheism' is that it places the person in terms of religion. It looks towards them and says "You are without God/s." Why do we have to be placed in terms of whether or not we have God in our lives? As you rightly pointed out, religion has been aronud a lot longer (certainly wide-spread, long-lasting religion anyway) than those who are non-religious.

However, one point of your arguement I have some sort of problem with is your assertion with regards to religious documents and religious views being as valid as Greek tragedies and Shakespeare plays. Religious assertions were created in order to explain that which we cannot. Thor was used to explain lightning. Neptune was used to explain sea storms. God was used to explain the human presence. After time we have come up with rational, scientific explanations as to why these things have occured. (The only major gap which science has yet to discover -and maybe never will - is the creation of the universe.) However, Greek philosphers and Shakespeare look at the human condition. They reflect upon things which we - at least on some level - understand much more. Nietzsche and Dickens are so relevant today because they look the at the human condition. Rationalisations of thunder and earthquakes however, and in my opinion, are outdated. Many things which the Bible and other scriptures explained through God etc. have now been explained by other, more explainable, understandable and observable, means.

If you don't smoke, you are a non-smoker. Bill Hicks was either very angry (and wrong) or, and I hope this is the case, making a joke. But I suspect he wasn't.

Little

Commented 10 months ago - 13th July 2012 - 12:01pm

This whole article really made me think. In particular how closely you describe Antitheism to being a religion of its own. I agree with this. It seems that people really need something to believe in. Whether it's god, a number of gods, aliens or a complete disregard of religion- they all share very common factors.

I am not religious, but I wouldn't describe myself as an atheist. I don't feel the need to put myself in a box. As soon as you say that you are something, people automatically associate you with a set of rules, beliefs and morals- many of which may not fit with your way of thinking.

For example, I am a vegetarian, but that doesn't mean I don't wear leather shoes, live off lentils and love nut roast. Many people may either agree or disagree with my principles, but they are my OWN principles. Everyone is entitled to their own personal set of beliefs. You can wear leather and be a vegetarian if that's what you want to do. Being a vegetarian means not eating meat- not, not wearing it. But, many people associate all of these other beliefs with being a vegetarian. You are (for want of a better word) your own BESPOKE model.

Another point I want to make is that as soon as you declair that you are 'something', it leaves you open to attack. This is fine, if you have the ammunition and desire to argue back. I will discuss my reasons for being a vegetarian to anyone that asks because I have thought about this topic long and hard and am able and prepared to express my reasons why.Yet, I don't feel this strongly about my non-religious beliefs. I would not say that I was an Atheist because I do not really care enough about it. I certainly don't believe in any god, but that is just because I don't. See, what I mean about my argument? Pretty short isn't it?

I don't believe in any God, because I just don't- that's my argument. Do I need a label?

I think people are too quick to push their views on other people. One thing I do believe in is 'Peace and Love'. Religion is not the cause of wars, people are. If we all focused on putting a bit more positivity into the world rather than attacking people for who they are, things would be much nicer.

Stormer007

Commented 10 months ago - 13th July 2012 - 13:18pm

@Little if you don't believe in any Gods, then you are an atheist. That's like saying "I have all the characteristics of a human, but I'm not a human because I don't want to be labelled". Atheists, by their very definition, don't believe in any gods. If you don't believe in God/s, then you're an atheist.

Don't worry about this though. Just because you're something now, doesn't mean you have to be it for the rest of your life. Plenty of people "find Jesus" and convert to Christianity, just as many people of faith lose their faith. I understand why you would be hesitant to place yourself in one camp or the other, as I know exactly what this feels like. But sometimes, you don't have to place yourself. The definition does it for you.

hermholland

Commented 10 months ago - 14th July 2012 - 02:52am

I think a lot of what's going on in these comments is simply the difference between what you are, and what you claim to be.

Little is saying that they don't want to claim to be anything, regardless of how correct or incorrect the definition of that term may be to their own choices. Because the moment someone claims to be something, all sorts of other prejudices, and stereotypes, and assumptions, are applied to them.

I'm pleased that the comments on this article have taken the form they have, as opposed to the "Religion Vs People-Who-Hate-Religion" argument that could have come up.

Stormer007; I think you've misunderstood the term "Atheism" here, in that you're saying that an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in the existence of specific gods, whether or not they believe in any others. But what an atheist actually is, is someone who does not believe in the existence of any gods, across the board.
In that regard, no, not everyone is an atheist. This is the difference between Atheism, and non-belief.
If you replace "atheist" with "non-believer" in your statements then it is completely appropriate.

And then, in response to the Greek Philosophy and Shakespeare comments, I can see what you're saying. Yes, the Greek philosophers and the works of Shakespeare concentrate more on the Psychological and Sociological sciences, whereas the examples you've given for religion explain more atmospheric and physical sciences.
Maybe my examples were just bad ones, because there are still scientists from these times that would have come up with explanations for the things that Religion attempted to explain (I just don't know their names!)

I think on this topic you're getting hung up on the specifics of precisely what I said, as opposed to what I was getting at, which was simply the fact that there are people who gave non-religious explanations, or theories, for the same things approached by religion, that are still appreciated and taken into account in the modern day.

And finally, the Bill Hicks quote.
I guess on its own it does give off the wrong impression! It is the start to a fairly extended series of jokes that are based around a specific type of non-smoker. He specifies that he means the type who go up to people who do smoke, and purposefully cough at them in order to demonstrate their distaste at them. It's not just an angry rant or anything.
There's one thing I've always really appreciated about the comedy of Bill Hicks, which is sorely lacking in some of his contemporaries, or those who try and plough the same fields of comedy and politics that he did. And that's that he never just ranted, or had a go at something. His displeasure towards certain aspects of the world were always demonstrated through comedy, and were primarily just that.
For example, George Bush Snr.

I won't go into too much detail, but after he was no longer in power, Hicks explained why he didn't vote for Bush in that most recent election (in which he was not re-elected). And instead of just complaining about Bush as a president, he looked at elements of his presidency, and peoples opinions on it, with a satirical eye (bringing light to the defects through sarcasm, sardonic wit, and juxtaposition).
There was still a smile on his face throughout. Which is definitely more than can be said for some people, who just throw in awkward, angry ranting in the middle of their otherwise entertaining set.

...Oops! I wrote more than I intended then!

Little

Commented 10 months ago - 20th July 2012 - 12:52pm

'Little is saying that they don't want to claim to be anything, regardless of how correct or incorrect the definition of that term may be to their own choices. Because the moment someone claims to be something, all sorts of other prejudices, and stereotypes, and assumptions, are applied to them.'

Very eloquently put. That is exactly what I was trying to say. You are very good with words :)

End0fDarkness

Commented 7 months ago - 9th October 2012 - 16:10pm

I can see that your argument has been thought out and that you have done some research, however, I am seeing a few holes in your view towards atheism / antitheism.

First, your self classification as agnostic. Agnosticism is a lack of knowledge of whether something exists or not and that that knowledgable is not acquireable. It is not a middle ground but rather a further explanation of a belief. For example, you can be an agnostic atheist (a person who does not believe in God but believes it will never be proven) or an agnostic Christian (someone who believes in God but does not believe that his existance will ever be proven).
It is explained well in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk

Secondly, you say that
'but none so praised, and almost worshipped, as The God Delusion'
The definition of worship is
'reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred.'
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Worship?s=t (accessed 09/10/12)
I am confused by your use of the term 'almost worshipped'. The book itself is not seen as sacred (by at least many of the prolific atheists that I know: AronRa, Richard Dawkins, Phil Mason, potholer) in the same way that the Bible or the Qu ran is seen as sacred. Instead, the God Delusion is highly regarded due to the information it contains. Much like psychologists see the work of Sigmund Freud as being important information, but not seen as sacred.

As I said, for some Atheists (or antitheists) this may be true. However, to much of the atheist community that I have come across, they stress that nothing should be worshipped (or 'almost worshipped') as the stresses are on critical thinking and coming to conclusions for yourself, repeating arguments mean nothing without understanding them.

You also state that 'Reason' is seen as a deity by antitheists (not entirely sure if you mean that Atheists see it in the same way). However, by my research of Richard Dawkins after reading the God Delusion and the Magic of Reality myself, I see that in terms of deciding whether something is accurate and worth believing is to study it, research it and think about it. I do not see any other alternative to this apart from 'faith', which does not have a good record of being true. So, I do not see how following reason is the same as believing that a God or gods are all powerful being that should be worshipped.

Anthiest propoganda versus Religious propganda. You stated in your article that they are just as guilty as themselves. However, children in schools in the UK are often made to say the Lord's prayer or to act out a nativity play at Christmas. But as a Childcare student, I never saw any proganda to atheism or antitheism in our schools. In America, Christian references are printed on money...but not atheist references. I understand that there is a lot of pro-atheism information on the internet...however, I find that this is found by those who are looking for it or information on religion. This video 'If Atheists Acted Religious' points out the differences:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pwwvBygoFA

Another point made in your article is that Antitheists often attack religious people, calling them stupid. I agree, some Atheists probably do do this (and I do find it wrong). However, I have not seen Richard Dawkins do this. In the video of him responding to hate mail, he laughs at the insults that he gets, not the people themselves. This is known as an ad hominum attack (to attack a person rather than an argument) and is known in debates as a lowly desperate tactic, which is why many debaters stay away from it.

You ask why science has any authority in terms of 'common sense'. Common Sense, as the term points, is sense that is common amongst people. In terms of religion, why should praying to a God to cure a disease have any less of a standing than a tried and tested medical procedure? To me, simply because it works.

You also mention that old things can sometimes be true. I agree. However, it is true that somethings do become outdated. I wonder if in this part you were saying that all of the Bible or other religious text can be true or if only part of it is. With either one, could you please give some examples of the parts that are true.

Finally, you point out that religions often have charitable sides to them and that Atheism does not. It is true that religions do have some charitable services and I respect them for that. However, I also find it important to note that religious poeple have also been responsible for cold blooded murder, the beheading of 'witches'.

hermholland

Commented 6 months ago - 30th October 2012 - 14:24pm

Firstly, let me say that I’m pleased to see another well-thought out response. If nothing else, I wanted this essay to trigger thought in peoples’ minds about the nature of this ‘Antitheism’ (that I’m still quite pleased with as a title for what I’m talking about).
I’m happy to see people agreeing & disagreeing with things I’ve said, especially when some consideration has gone into each response.

But yes, I’ll try my best to reply properly to this comment, and address each of your points.

In stating that I am Agnostic, I am working from a specific definition of Agnosticism as a standalone idea, as opposed to a religious agnostic, or an atheist agnostic. I think the confusion here is that I used the term as a noun, whereas you have used it as an adjective. I describe myself as an agnostic person, in place of being a religious person, or an atheist, but you’re describing an agnostic disposition on Theism or Atheism.
Here are a few definitions to that effect:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com defines Agnosticism as follows:
“n.
1. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
1. b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.”

Wikipedia describes Agnosticism as follows:
“Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable.”

The Oxford English Dictionary defines Agnosticism as follows:
“n.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.”

I hope this clears that little misunderstanding up for you. In matters of religion, I am agnostic. I am not of an agnostic disposition towards either Theism or Atheism; the point is that I am neither.

Your second point centres around the idea of worship, but my point was about something being *almost* worshipped. The emphasis here on the ‘almost’.
I know I don’t need to explain, but for anyone else interested in the discussion, I’ll elaborate:
The debate on this point centres around the fact that, as cited by End0fDarkness from http://dictionary.reference.com, worship is defined as:
“reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred.”
And my rebuttal is designed to highlight the definition of almost, as listed by that same website:
“very nearly; all but”
And is defined in The Oxford English Dictionary as:
‘not quite; very nearly’
Put simply, then, this would indicate that my use of the term ‘worship’, when preceded by the word ‘almost’ would describe a state of being that treats The God Delusion with a similar sort of ‘honor or homage paid to’ it as would be defined by worship, but not exactly so; thus removing the element referring to ‘any object regarded as sacred’.
There was confusion regarding my use of the term ‘almost worshipped’ due to its hints towards the sacred. I hope that this has put clearer boundaries on my use of the term, and eliminated the idea of sacred from my use.

Then you talk about my using ‘Reason’ as a deity for Antitheism.
You make a fair point, but miss the main concept behind this. I am speaking metaphorically, which I indicate at least once in my description of the idea that I am putting forward (which I have also indicated as being not particularly accurate, but useful for triggering thought about the concept).
At risk of sounding patronising (which I don’t mean to, by the way):
The Oxford English Dictionary defines metaphor as follows:
“n.
a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable”
Therefore my whole argument at this point hinges on a direct comparison of similar ideas that are not identical, with many parts of my argument being “not literally applicable” in order to help highlight the similarities and differences between the two ideas.
The point here is, as described in my essay, that Reason has been elevated to such an extent that it can stand in as Antitheism’s answer to the “Abstracted entity ordained as judge, jury, and executioner based on self-declared guidelines”.

Then, in your response to my points about propaganda, you first referred to the recital of the Lord’s Prayer, and Nativity Scene re-enactments.
The Lord’s Prayer is a fair point, and it’s not something I completely agree with still going on in all-inclusive schools. For example; in my Primary School (Eglwys Wen) we used to recite the Lord’s Prayer at the end of each assembly (and I still remember it word for word). It wasn’t something I ever thought about, until someone in my year, who was from a Buddhist family, raised some objections to being included in this. Actually, I don’t remember if it was him, or his family, but that’s not important; what’s important is that objections were raised. Now, previously, if you didn’t join in & were spotted, you were told to do so... not quite told off, but probably about one step removed from this. After the objection was raised, my old classmate was given the option of leaving before the Lord’s Prayer was recited, or just not join in. If I remember correctly he elected to just sit there and not join in.
My point here is that I have no knowledge of Eglwys Wen Primary School being advertised as a Christian Primary School, but it was included anyway. I suppose we can blame that on the fact that Britain is a predominantly Christian country, or has been at least, and that when this practice of recitation was started it was probably during a time when that sort of thing was fairly common. Now, however, this is no longer the case, and this practice should be eliminated from schools with no obvious religious bias.

But the Nativity Scene re-enactments... I feel this is a completely different kettle of fish.
We, as a country, celebrate Christmas. Christmas is a *Christian* holiday. It celebrates the *Birth of Christ*. And this is the event depicted by the Nativity Scene re-enactments. While this is still the case, those people who celebrate Christmas have absolutely no leg to stand on. End of discussion.
Any child not willing to participate in the Nativity Scene re-enactments on theological grounds will have the option to be excluded from this. But there is no grounds for argument against the Nativity Scene when the United Kingdom still celebrates Christmas en masse.
Until our country starts celebrating something not called Christmas (i.e.: The Winter Solstice, or ‘Winterval’ as has been attempted in the past) there is nothing more to say on that topic.

And then you carry on to references on money.
America is a country founded on its religious ideals; “In God We Trust” and such are parts of the national identity, and origins of the country. This is like taking the Dragon off the flag of Wales because it refers back to myths & legends, and Arthurian stories (which could be argued to have a Pagan influence). Obviously, the American-Christian link is more overt, but it’s a similar concept. And so we don’t have confusion like earlier, please not my use of the word “like” as opposed to “the same as”.
But also, for the record, British money has Charles Darwin on it. If that’s not an Atheist reference, then I don’t know what is.

And on the internet I never try to find Antitheist propaganda, but am constantly faced with it. And I am not alone. This is not something that only appears for those who look for it. It’s everywhere.

Now, the point about Richard Dawkins’ video that I made, and you then contested.
The whole point in this video is to highlight the actions of those sending in the hate mail, and he does so with the stark arrogance of someone who thinks he is a genius amongst apes.
The identities of the senders of the mail isn’t made important, but this is as much to do with the fact that it’s a response to the religious people taking offence as it is to the insults he gets. How can you laugh at an insult without laughing at the insulter? The point here is for him to flaunt his intellectual muscles at the people who have been upset by him.
His responses to these comments are far from noble, and he is certainly not taking the higher ground here.

My point about why science has any authority in terms of common sense was made to highlight the point that these ‘facts’ are things that people have decided are the truth, but with what authority do they do this? Is it because they have letters (a creation of Mankind as a tool for communication) after their names (a creation of Mankind as a tool for identifying other beings) as a result of getting a qualification (a creation of Mankind as an abstract idea for the quantification of ‘knowledge’)?
The point is that just because lots of people (who have been told the same sort of information on the grounds that it is understood by other collections of people who have had a similar experience) have come to the same conclusion, that does not mean that it is more or less correct than a different collection of people.
Scientists have decided that they are the authority on what is right or wrong, but with no real authority to do so. When you think about Schools, and Qualifications, and Education you have to realise that these things are quite odd, in the grand scheme of things. What other species does the same? Outside of a mother/father showing their offspring how to survive, what other species creates these set targets and achievements like the ones we do in Academics and so on.
A lion has to prove itself as the strongest in its pride, not go to a different pride to learn all of the necessary skills, terms, and information it needs to be able to enact the role of the Alpha Male only to then come back from this other pride with an object that says it is now worthy to be the Alpha Male in this pride. But humans do this; we have Business Management courses, and apprenticeships, and the requirement for prior experience & qualifications to be in charge of these things.

There is no overall point here, it is more a question; who really has the authority to say whether or not something is the overall Truth?

And when you say that I “mention that old things can sometimes be true” you are really over-generalising the point I made. What I was saying was that saying ‘information, once old, becomes wrong’ is not a relevant point, because it is not entirely true.
You’re completely right in saying that some things do become outdated; I will not disagree with you there. My issue is that Antitheists seem to believe that just because an idea is from a long time ago it is therefore irrelevant to modern life.
You ask for me to talk about which parts of religious texts are true, but you’re missing the point entirely.

Have you ever heard the discussion about Shakespeare really understanding the human condition?
Recently there have been many modern adaptations of Shakespeare’s works (Romeo & Juliet, Hamlet, A Midsummer Night’s Dream), and more or less anyone who has studied these adaptations, or compared them, will be able to see how easily they translate into the modern day. Take the Baz Luhrmann adaptation of Romeo & Juliet. The script is not changed, but the weapons have been updated from swords to guns, and all of the other elements that were specific to the period within which it was written have been updated to their modern-day equivalents. But for some reason, the message stays the same. The story is still the same, even though on the surface everything is different.
The point here is that the story of Romeo & Juliet is a story that pierces the depths of the human condition, and is a timeless tale that people over the ages are still able to understand just as much as back when they were written, even though they are old, and some elements of the storytelling are outdated.

This is the same with many religious texts. The fact that there are many parts of these texts that are outdated does not mean that all of it is. The heart of the point being made is the same.
So I cannot give you specific examples, and it wouldn’t help even if I were to do so, because you would more easily get hung up on the sociological/cultural/historical differences, as opposed to the underlying message of the example, which is the part that does not age.

And lastly you talk about my comments about charitable organisations, apparently using the information that I have already provided to inform these comments to discredit them.
Let me first refer you to one of my closing statements:
“The violence incited by religion is not ignorable, unforgivable, and one of the major reasons why I could not subscribe to any religious beliefs”
And then another:
“ All this Antitheism seems to do is attack, criticise, and try to debunk religions without counterbalancing their negativity with any real charitable actions.”
And another:
“Arguably, all of these points blur into obscurity when put up against the death count of people in the name of religion.”
And another:
“ I can’t argue with the fact that the amount of people who have died in the name(s) of one or more deities is absolutely atrocious, and I won’t.”

As you seem to have missed the point, my whole argument about Religions and their charitable organisations was preceded, and followed, by acknowledgements of their aggression, and their evil acts. I actually put more time, effort, and used up more of my word count, saying that Religion has incited some real evil, than I did saying anything about the charitable acts.

What I actually said was that religion actually tries to help people, too, where antitheism doesn’t.
Yes it is bad, horrific even, that Religion has been the cause for so many deaths, but at least it is also trying to help people.
Antitheism doesn’t even do that. It is geared primarily towards the propagation of its own hatred towards Theism, and Theistic peoples, and does not do anything to provide any aide to any people in need.
And, before you say something about the fact that Antitheism hasn’t killed remotely as many people as Religion (because I already know that), please refer to this quote which is also from my essay:
“You’ve got to wonder whether the death count for Antitheism would be as high (if not higher) if it had been around for as long as these religions have.”

In closing; thank you very much End0fDarkness for your response. It was well thought out, well argued, and well appreciated in the further discussion of an idea I feel strongly about. And I can’t say that I disagree with much of what you’ve said. In fact the main point of discussion here was based around misdirection of ideas, or misunderstanding of meanings.