Poor Arguments against Theism

[gnostic]

And that's more than fair, people without any respect for actual philosophy often throw their words around haphazardly without clarification. But even if only Christianity is being rejected by based on its holy text, my first point still holds! It's not logical to reject any god claim based on a holy text, all you can do is reject the validity of that holy text.

Sorry, but isn't Christian theism and Christian god are based on the bible.

If anyone (referring to Christian, just as an example) can support their theism through their holy text, then shouldn't any atheist be able to reject this same theism through using this same bible that a Christian followed?

I am asking because, you seem to be giving one rule for Christians, and different rule for atheists. Shouldn't the one rule applied to both theists and atheists?

If the bible is going to be use to support version of theism, then wouldn't it be right for atheist to reject this form of theism using the same bible?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The most common one I've heard is that not all things can be contingent, and so there must be something non-contingent, an uncaused cause. Where is the fallacy?

For starters:

- in the conventional form, the cosmological argument violates its own premises (and in the "kalam" form, it has unjustified leaps).
- "uncaused cause" doesn't necessarily imply God.

I think a lot of times personal experience is, well, personal. Many theists don't seem willing to use it as objective evidence, or are hesitant to even share details. But I did not mean experience as in working in a profession for a long time. I mean when a client goes to a doctor or counselor, the doctor does not discard their personal experience (stabbing pain, feeling achy, feeling sad, feeling angry) based on it being subjective. In fact, they start with an experience.

When someone goes to the doctor with, say, abdominal pain and says "I have appendicitis!" The doctor won't take the patient's word for it; she'll do her own diagnosis. She'll generally (though not always) believe the patient's report of what he's experiencing, but consider a range of possible causes and attempt to either positively establish one or rule out some with negative evidence.

When someone says that they "experienced God", the same process applies: unless I have reason to think the person is lying, my typical response is to take them as sincere about their experience and perceptions, but not assume that they've attributed them to a cause correctly. My approach is to say "okay - let's assume that your experience is as you describe it; what possible causes could there be?"

... and I've never managed to narrow it down to God as the only possible cause.

 

[Quintessence]

... and I've never managed to narrow it down to God as the only possible cause.

Neither have I. Then again, I also don't know of any phenomena that has a single possible explanation or cause (I'd pretty confidently say that this is impossible, actually). In the end, it's all about what stories you want to listen to, that you want to tell yourself, that you want to tell others.

Did you miss this post? It's okay to go "I'd prefer not to answer." It just means you'll forever remain an enigma to me.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I give permission for you and @1137 to quote my other posts here on RF and I invite other atheists to also give their permission.

Anyone can quote my posts at any time for any reason. For any reason.
Whilst they can easily prove I have several deep-seated issues, I don't think they'll fit me in the boxes built in the OP.

But then, I've seen bad arguments from theists too, and don't assume most theists fit into those boxes either, so still unsure what the thread is really getting at.

 

[idav]

The teapot idea I would agree is a poor argument. I get the idea in how it relates to faith and believing in something unseen. However when people are talking about existence, in which the source is god, flying teapots and pink unicorns just don't cut it. Something needs to be the source of existence and such a source doesn't necessarily need to be seen to be believed. Calling it a FSM or something like that just side-steps the issue.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

many atheists don't seem the slightest bit interested in truth anymore.

At least we're not generalizing...

Given that part of your argument is that any statement about theists is an over-generalization, bordering on a strawman, doesn't it count as a little disingenuous to do the same to atheists?

For what it's worth, I've seen atheists make dumb-arse arguments against theism. Theism or the lack thereof, has never really struck me as a measure of overall intelligence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because I'm an egotist and like easy victories

Then why do you lose so often?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Neither have I. Then again, I also don't know of any phenomena that has a single possible explanation or cause (I'd pretty confidently say that this is impossible, actually).

I haven't even ever seen a god be the most likely explanation. Or be one of a few explanations still remaining after likely ones are eliminated.

Take any of our many threads about near death experiences: there are always people who pop up and claim that their NDE (or someone else's) is evidence of God, but none of them that I've seen have ever been able to address basic challenges like "why would you take the perceptions of a severely stressed, dying brain as reliable?" Until they get over that hump, it seems premature to me to conclude that a deity had something to do with the NDE.

In the end, it's all about what stories you want to listen to, that you want to tell yourself, that you want to tell others.

No, it isn't. There's a difference between constructing different narratives to explain the facts at hand and building different stories around different factual claims. As Daniel Moynihan is supposed to have said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

Did you miss this post? It's okay to go "I'd prefer not to answer." It just means you'll forever remain an enigma to me.

I think I started replying, but only typed out half a post before I got sidetracked with other things. Here you go:

I wager you're aware by this point that I regard the lion's share of a person's worldview as falling into this category, whether it is considered "religious" or not.

But you hopefully recognize that our values and aesthetic preferences are predicated on facts that can be true or false.

In the case of religion and theism, a person's position on the factual question of whether one or more gods exist, and what their nature is will play a large role in a person's choice of religion. Decisions about which way is the best way to worship God are value judgements; the decision that the God being worshipped actually exists is a conclusion about facts.

Yeah, that happens because of the standards you set for yourself. I mean, it seems to me you're confident and comfortable with the narratives you govern your life by.

Why would this be a problem? If only one worldview meets a high standard, it seems obvious that this worldview is the one to go with.

Since no form of what you understand to be "theism" will ever meet your standards, why bother being open to any of it at all? Isn't that a waste of your time? Or is there something else you aim to get out of the activity?

I don't assume that any form of theism will ever meet my standards. I also find it puzzling when theists complain about standards being too high - it seems like they're conceding that their worldviews aren't reasonable.

As I've said many times before, if our standards for evidence are so low that mutually exclusive claims all clear whatever bar we've set, then the bar is demonstrably too low.

That being said, I'm a skeptic. Part of this means challenging my own biases, even - or maybe especially - on the things that seem absolutely obvious to me. And it seems absolutely obvious that gods and religions are man-made. I have never seen anything that violates the assumption that this universe is godless. Theistic religion - especially not just the intellectual assent of mere theism, but actually building one's life around certainty that one's particular form of theism is correct - seems absolutely bonkers to me. So this is one area of my life where it's most important that I challenge my assumptions and biases.

Also, I'm fascinated by the atheist-theist divide: I think it's strange that we would be able to have a fundamental disagreement over something that people build their lives around where one side is absolutely convinced it's true and sees evidence for this everywhere, and where the other side - looking at exactly the same stuff - sees no reason at all to believe that it's true.

This goes against how things would normally work: I mean, if we disagreed about, say, whether we need to breathe oxygen, we'd find the right answer out pretty quickly. But when it comes to gods, we have one side where many people are saying that God is just as necessary as oxygen and the other side denying this, but the certainty is so prolonged.

It's wild. I want to wrap my brain around that more.

 

[1137]

Then why do you lose so often?

Ha! You wish.

 

[idav]

I haven't even ever seen a god be the most likely explanation. Or be one of a few explanations still remaining after likely ones are eliminated.

Take any of our many threads about near death experiences: there are always people who pop up and claim that their NDE (or someone else's) is evidence of God, but none of them that I've seen have ever been able to address basic challenges like "why would you take the perceptions of a severely stressed, dying brain as reliable?" Until they get over that hump, it seems premature to me to conclude that a deity had something to do with the NDE.


No, it isn't. There's a difference between constructing different narratives to explain the facts at hand and building different stories around different factual claims. As Daniel Moynihan is supposed to have said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."


I think I started replying, but only typed out half a post before I got sidetracked with other things. Here you go:


But you hopefully recognize that our values and aesthetic preferences are predicated on facts that can be true or false.

In the case of religion and theism, a person's position on the factual question of whether one or more gods exist, and what their nature is will play a large role in a person's choice of religion. Decisions about which way is the best way to worship God are value judgements; the decision that the God being worshipped actually exists is a conclusion about facts.


Why would this be a problem? If only one worldview meets a high standard, it seems obvious that this worldview is the one to go with.


I don't assume that any form of theism will ever meet my standards. I also find it puzzling when theists complain about standards being too high - it seems like they're conceding that their worldviews aren't reasonable.

As I've said many times before, if our standards for evidence are so low that mutually exclusive claims all clear whatever bar we've set, then the bar is demonstrably too low.

That being said, I'm a skeptic. Part of this means challenging my own biases, even - or maybe especially - on the things that seem absolutely obvious to me. And it seems absolutely obvious that gods and religions are man-made. I have never seen anything that violates the assumption that this universe is godless. Theistic religion - especially not just the intellectual assent of mere theism, but actually building one's life around certainty that one's particular form of theism is correct - seems absolutely bonkers to me. So this is one area of my life where it's most important that I challenge my assumptions and biases.

Also, I'm fascinated by the atheist-theist divide: I think it's strange that we would be able to have a fundamental disagreement over something that people build their lives around where one side is absolutely convinced it's true and sees evidence for this everywhere, and where the other side - looking at exactly the same stuff - sees no reason at all to believe that it's true.

This goes against how things would normally work: I mean, if we disagreed about, say, whether we need to breathe oxygen, we'd find the right answer out pretty quickly. But when it comes to gods, we have one side where many people are saying that God is just as necessary as oxygen and the other side denying this, but the certainty is so prolonged.

It's wild. I want to wrap my brain around that more.

To me it isn't as if people disagree on whether we breathe oxygen. To me it's differ, I can't really speak to all theists cause I agree with some of your arguments. It's like the evidence pointing to some criminal on the court of law but atheists hinging on the fact that there's still a one percent chance so say not guilty. I would say for the most part atheist doubt is reasonable but it's when theists try and say a guilty or not guilty verdict on the source of existence being God. Atheists seem to side step the issue saying something to the effect that's it's unknown or even implying nothing is a better argument then something being the source. The overwhelming evidence to me is the massive power and capabilities of the cosmos, which is readily handy to people who follow science.

 

[Quintessence]

I haven't even ever seen a god be the most likely explanation. Or be one of a few explanations still remaining after likely ones are eliminated.

I wonder how humans decide what a "most likely" explanation looks like? Might it look different for different humans, and for different purposes or applications? It seems that way to me, at any rate. That aside, I don't see the point of theisms as necessarily being about explanations for things, so I don't face this kind of mental obstacle when assessing various theistic stories.

Take any of our many threads about near death experiences: there are always people who pop up and claim that their NDE (or someone else's) is evidence of God, but none of them that I've seen have ever been able to address basic challenges like "why would you take the perceptions of a severely stressed, dying brain as reliable?" Until they get over that hump, it seems premature to me to conclude that a deity had something to do with the NDE.

I don't blame them for not addressing this "basic" challenge. Folks can play the "why" interrogation game all day long. Rather than respectfully listening to the person's stories, it undermines and invalidates what they think and feel. No surprise that many find that tiresome and don't want to play that game. There's an overarching vibe of "I don't trust or respect you" to such interrogations, whether intentional or not.

No, it isn't. There's a difference between constructing different narratives to explain the facts at hand and building different stories around different factual claims. As Daniel Moynihan is supposed to have said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

It's pretty widely known in the social sciences that "the facts" are trumped by perceptions/stories when it comes to people living their lives and human behaviors, but I guess we're just going to have to disagree here. That quote is ironically adorable, though.

But you hopefully recognize that our values and aesthetic preferences are predicated on facts that can be true or false.

You'd have to give me an example - I'm not sure I take your meaning, as this strikes me as counterintuitive on the face of it.

Why would this be a problem? If only one worldview meets a high standard, it seems obvious that this worldview is the one to go with.

I didn't say it was a problem; I was making an observation that you seem very self-assured. That self-assuredness is echoed again in this response.

I don't assume that any form of theism will ever meet my standards. I also find it puzzling when theists complain about standards being too high - it seems like they're conceding that their worldviews aren't reasonable.

Hmm. It's interesting that you interpret it that way. That would not be my first thought, nor would I feel comfortable making such an assumption.

That being said, I'm a skeptic. Part of this means challenging my own biases, even - or maybe especially - on the things that seem absolutely obvious to me. And it seems absolutely obvious that gods and religions are man-made. I have never seen anything that violates the assumption that this universe is godless. Theistic religion - especially not just the intellectual assent of mere theism, but actually building one's life around certainty that one's particular form of theism is correct - seems absolutely bonkers to me. So this is one area of my life where it's most important that I challenge my assumptions and biases.

When things like this happen to me, I usually recognize that something about the topic is outside the map of the territory I usually operate by. This happens all the time when different human cultures interact with each other, and how people react to foreign ideas varies quite a bit. Then we can ask what the goal is of that cross-cultural exchange. What do we want to get out of it? Do we want to listen and understand? Do we want to judge and engage in dominance posturing? Do we want to silence them? Do we want to support them? Could be lots of things. And maybe it's good to remember that sometimes we will never "get" something - it's just too foreign to us, and we're too rigid in our thinking about something to get outside of our own boxes. But hey, the alternative to being rigid and closed-minded on some things is being so open that your brain is falling apart, right?

Also, I'm fascinated by the atheist-theist divide: I think it's strange that we would be able to have a fundamental disagreement over something that people build their lives around where one side is absolutely convinced it's true and sees evidence for this everywhere, and where the other side - looking at exactly the same stuff - sees no reason at all to believe that it's true.

I no longer see such divide, so I do not know what this divide you are talking about looks like anymore. I see people who call themselves "atheists" behaving pretty much the same way as people who call themselves "theists." I'm kinda curious... to you have this same sort of response to other sorts of cultural differences? If not, why might that be?

LOL... sorry this was so long... I should probably edit and trim it down, but hopefully it isn't too awful.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I wonder how humans decide what a "most likely" explanation looks like? Might it look different for different humans, and for different purposes or applications? It seems that way to me, at any rate. That aside, I don't see the point of theisms as necessarily being about explanations for things, so I don't face this kind of mental obstacle when assessing various theistic stories.

When we're talking about a purported physical experience of God, I think an analogy with medicine probably works best: I don't see why "I was woken up by an angel last night" is fundamentally any more difficult to investigate than "I was woken up by chest pains last night."

And I don't really care what theism is "about"; I just know that I've been confronted with people who have told me that they can't be shaken from their faith by any evidence or arguments I give them because they've personally witnessed God.

I don't blame them for not addressing this "basic" challenge. Folks can play the "why" interrogation game all day long. Rather than respectfully listening to the person's stories, it undermines and invalidates what they think and feel. No surprise that many find that tiresome and don't want to play that game. There's an overarching vibe of "I don't trust or respect you" to such interrogations, whether intentional or not.

Well, I don't trust them. I'm also typically not the person to start the discussion, so I'm not sure "interrogation" is a fair way to describe it.

I'm certainly questioning the validity of what they're saying. I'm not going to accept their explanation of their experiences without looking into them myself. I recognize that my own brain can be fooled, and I don't have a problem raising this possibility with others... especially when they tell me stories that, at least on their face, sound pretty similar to psychotic or drug-induced hallucinations.

It's not that different from, for instance, someone who thinks that WiFi is giving him headaches. I'll believe that he gets headaches, but I'll want more information on how he came to his conclusion about the source of the headaches before I go along with him.

It's pretty widely known in the social sciences that "the facts" are trumped by perceptions/stories when it comes to people living their lives and human behaviors, but I guess we're just going to have to disagree here. That quote is ironically adorable, though.

Not sure what you mean by this.

You'd have to give me an example - I'm not sure I take your meaning, as this strikes me as counterintuitive on the face of it.

As a simplistic example: my aesthetic preference about my favourite ice cream flavour is predicated on my factual opinion that this flavour isn't poisonous. If I thought that flavour was poisonous, then my favourite flavour would change.

Other examples: my decisions about I should spend my money are informed by the facts about how much the different options cost: if I believe - as a value judgement - that anything more than $10 is too much for a widget, then my belief - as a factual matter - about what the going price is for widgets will determine whether I end up thinking "I should buy a widget" or "I shouldn't buy a widget" (value judgements).

Hmm. It's interesting that you interpret it that way. That would not be my first thought, nor would I feel comfortable making such an assumption.

When the things that someone accepts as true are no better supported than the things he rejects as false, then their decision about what's true or false is arbitrary. I have no problem calling this approach unreasonable.

When things like this happen to me, I usually recognize that something about the topic is outside the map of the territory I usually operate by. This happens all the time when different human cultures interact with each other, and how people react to foreign ideas varies quite a bit. Then we can ask what the goal is of that cross-cultural exchange. What do we want to get out of it? Do we want to listen and understand? Do we want to judge and engage in dominance posturing? Do we want to silence them? Do we want to support them? Could be lots of things. And maybe it's good to remember that sometimes we will never "get" something - it's just too foreign to us, and we're too rigid in our thinking about something to get outside of our own boxes. But hey, the alternative to being rigid and closed-minded on some things is being so open that your brain is falling apart, right?

I've tried my best at "cross-cultural exchange" for more than a decade, including several years of trying to become a theist myself. Exactly what else do you expect from me?

I no longer see such divide, so I do not know what this divide you are talking about looks like anymore. I see people who call themselves "atheists" behaving pretty much the same way as people who call themselves "theists."

Yes: theists tend not to behave like we would expect people to behave if they were relying on their god(s), or if they were sure that the afterlife of their religion was real. Sometimes they do, but mostly they don't.

I'm kinda curious... to you have this same sort of response to other sorts of cultural differences? If not, why might that be?

Religion and theism may be strongly tied to culture, but the justification for their factual claims is independent of culture. A religion's god either exists or it doesn't.

Why don't you see a divide? Even if you've decided to approach your own theism as an aesthetic preference, you do recognize that the vast majority of theists appreciate their god(s) as literally existing entities, don't you?

 

[Kartari]

Hi Penguin,

When someone goes to the doctor with, say, abdominal pain and says "I have appendicitis!" The doctor won't take the patient's word for it; she'll do her own diagnosis. She'll generally (though not always) believe the patient's report of what he's experiencing, but consider a range of possible causes and attempt to either positively establish one or rule out some with negative evidence.

When someone says that they "experienced God", the same process applies: unless I have reason to think the person is lying, my typical response is to take them as sincere about their experience and perceptions, but not assume that they've attributed them to a cause correctly. My approach is to say "okay - let's assume that your experience is as you describe it; what possible causes could there be?"

... and I've never managed to narrow it down to God as the only possible cause.

Concerning your last several responses, you and I see things similarly with respect to theism. The above passage was particularly articulate in explaining precisely how I likewise think and feel so very often when I am "challenged" by theistic arguments. I've encountered a lot of theists online in my many years of debate (mostly on previous debate forums I've participated in) who point to what they perceive to be a conclusive argument either (a) for a given deity's/deities existence or (b) against a purported atheist position. Yet my mind immediately sees either (a) several alternative and more feasible and logical explanations that don't include a deity or deities or (b) how the believer has fundamentally misperceived the arguments presented by atheists. It seems you and I get accused of being closed-minded and rigid, but I think rather that we're actually more open-minded for seeing a vaster array of possibilities, and not fewer. And it also seems that we more clearly understand that humans base their decisions not on reality itself, but on our perceptions of reality, and just how easily faulty human perceptions can be.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The teapot idea I would agree is a poor argument. I get the idea in how it relates to faith and believing in something unseen. However when people are talking about existence, in which the source is god, flying teapots and pink unicorns just don't cut it.

They're useful analogies in the right context, especially about questions of how we justify our beliefs.

Something needs to be the source of existence and such a source doesn't necessarily need to be seen to be believed. Calling it a FSM or something like that just side-steps the issue.

Or it's dealing with a different issue than the one you're talking about.

When we don't know something, it's better to say that we don't know (and, if we can, try to figure it out) than to make up a cause. Parody deities like the Invisible Pink Unicorn call attention to the fact that just as it's arbitrary and unjustified to assume that the cause of the universe has one horn and is simultaneously invisible and pink, it's arbitrary and unjustified to assume, say, that the cause of the universe cares which bathroom trans people use and is simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent.

The relevant question is "how do you know that the things you're claiming are true?" And when we're talking about things like creator-gods, the mere fact that you have a hole in your knowledge that the thing you want to believe in would help fill if it was real isn't a way for you to know that the thing actually exists.

 

[idav]

They're useful analogies in the right context, especially about questions of how we justify our beliefs.


Or it's dealing with a different issue than the one you're talking about.

When we don't know something, it's better to say that we don't know (and, if we can, try to figure it out) than to make up a cause. Parody deities like the Invisible Pink Unicorn call attention to the fact that just as it's arbitrary and unjustified to assume that the cause of the universe has one horn and is simultaneously invisible and pink, it's arbitrary and unjustified to assume, say, that the cause of the universe cares which bathroom trans people use and is simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent.

The relevant question is "how do you know that the things you're claiming are true?" And when we're talking about things like creator-gods, the mere fact that you have a hole in your knowledge that the thing you want to believe in would help fill if it was real isn't a way for you to know that the thing actually exists.

I can see what your saying but when it comes to saying there is a source and that source is god respectively, it is a different sort of argument. Also belief is not necessarily predicated on knowing but of reasonable assumption. There is nothing wrong with not wanting to assume, however at the same time going to the argument that theists are wrong because its better too say "we just don't know" is a classic appeal to ignorance, which turns "god of gaps" arguments around on its head. We cannot conclude that we don't know therefore there is no god, and belief in a source for all existence, including the existence of said source, can be true despite our lack of knowledge.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can see what your saying but when it comes to saying there is a source and that source is god respectively, it is a different sort of argument.

I don't think so, especially with these parts of what you're saying:

- there is only one ultimate source for what we observe, not multiple sources.
- this single source has attributes that allow us to validly call it a god.

Also belief is not necessarily predicated on knowing but of reasonable assumption.

Sure: we can make tentative inferences from the facts and say that the evidence generally point in one way or another even though we're not certain. However:

- I've never seen an argument for a god or gods that clears even this bar.

- "I don't really know, but this assumption seems to work" is pretty meager stuff to build one's entire life around.

There is nothing wrong with not wanting to assume, however at the same time going to the argument that theists are wrong because its better too say "we just don't know" is a classic appeal to ignorance, which turns "god of gaps" arguments around on its head.

I think you're misunderstanding the argument. It isn't "God isn't supported by our evidence, so God doesn't exist;" it's "God isn't supported by our evidence, so belief in God isn't justified... and we ought not to accept beliefs that aren't justified."

We cannot conclude that we don't know therefore there is no god, and belief in a source for all existence, including the existence of said source, can be true despite our lack of knowledge.

We aren't concluding "we don't know therefore there is no god;" we're concluding "we don't know, period."

Even if we haven't disproven God, unless there's something actually pointing to God, then giving God a special focus that we don't give to any other hypothesis is arbitrary and unreasonable.

That's what these parody religions are getting at: if the only conclusion the evidence supports is that the universe was caused by something, then it's just as unreasonable to assume that the something is, say, Allah as described in the Qur'an as it is to say that the cause was the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

All you know is that the cause is something. Unjustifiably giving a god special status among all the potential "somethings" is irrational.

 

[columbus]

Okay... I just have to ask this. This word "religionist" ... why are you using that word, and what do you intend by it? My brain is kinda going WTF every time you've been using it.

Sorry, I thought I did explain this.
It seems to me that religious people have very different attitudes towards their religious beliefs. Some people tend to base their world view and ethics on their religion. Other people tend to base their religion on their world view and ethics. This isn't an absolute binary thing, but some people are extreme about basing almost everything on the teachings of their religion. I consider them to be religionists.

To draw examples from the religious tradition I am most familiar with, Christianity. Some people believe that the world was created about 6000 years ago in a week, because that's what the Bible says. They ignore climate science because Revelation says that it isn't important. They oppose any sex not "open to life between married people". Etc. Their ethics and world view is almost entirely based on their understanding of Christianity.
Then there are people who believe Jesus Rose from the dead and is God. They decide that the RCC is Jesus Own Church. They join, but they aren't buying the birth control limitations because they and their spouse don't want more children. Etc. They chose the church because it matches their ethics and world view, but don't change their beliefs to match the church. They aren't religionists.

You, from what I read on RF, are so far off that scale I barely see you as religious much less religionist.
Does that make sense?
Tom

 

[Quintessence]

LOL... it's funny you look at things that way, because for my life, what I call my religion is my all-encompassing way of life, which means it includes ethics and worldview. It sounds like the dichotomy you set up here really only works for religions that have dogma, which many do not. So yeah, I'd fall off your scale.

 

[columbus]

LOL... it's funny you look at things that way, because for my life, what I call my religion is my all-encompassing way of life, which means it includes ethics and worldview. It sounds like the dichotomy you set up here really only works for religions that have dogma, which many do not. So yeah, I'd fall off your scale.

I'm describing the world the way I see it, from southern Indiana.
Around here, Abrahamic religion is utterly dominant. I realize that things are different in Japan and Russia and such.
If you take only the big four world religions they may not be a majority of religions. But they do represent the majority of religious people and they all have their dogma.
Here where I live, there are more anti-queer creationists than non-Abrahamic religious people. So I am familiar with it and try to describe it accurately.
Tom

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well yeah. If the term was used properly it would indeed help with these problems. But what would an atheist like you do if they had to actually attack the positions of theists like me, rather than statistically normal theists? I doubt that Dawkins and Hitchens provided any attacks for less mainstream religions.

Why would an atheist need or want to attack or disprove all religions? That seems a peculiarly narrow approach to life.