this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2026
1360 points (99.1% liked)
Atheism
6248 readers
230 users here now
Community Guide
Archive Today will help you look at paywalled content the way search engines see it.
Statement of Purpose
- This is a support and conversation community for people who don't believe in gods.
- Superstition hucksters have no reason to subscribe or post here at all.
- If you are looking to debate or proselytize, options will be linked lower in the sidebar.
Acceptable
- Honest questions or conversations.
- Discussions on parenting or advice.
- Struggles, frustrations, coming out.
- Atheist memes. We can have fun!
- News headlines relevant to atheism.
Unacceptable
Depending on severity, you might be warned before adverse action is taken.
- Anything against site rules.
- Illegal and/or NSFW material.
- Troll posts and comments. There will be no attempt to explain what that means.
- Leading questions, agenda pushing, or disingenuous attempts to bait members.
- Personal attacks or flaming.
Inadvisable
- Self promotion or upvote farming.
- Excessive shitposting or off-topic discussion.
Application of warnings or bans will be subject to moderator discretion. Feel free to appeal. If changes to the guidelines are necessary, they will be adjusted.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a group that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of any other group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you you will be banned on sight.
Provable means able to provide proof to the moderation, and, if necessary, to the community.
~ /c/nostupidquestions
If you want your space listed in this sidebar and it is especially relevant to the atheist or skeptic communities, PM DancingPickle and we'll have a look!
Connect with Atheists
- Matrix: #atheism:envs.net
Help and Support Links
- Freedom From Religion Foundation
- The Secular Therapy Project
- Secular Students Alliance
- Black Nonbelievers
- The Clergy Project
- Atheist Alliance International
- Sunday Assembly
- Atheist Ireland
- Atheism UK
- Atheists United
Streaming Media
This is mostly YouTube at the moment. Podcasts and similar media - especially on federated platforms - may also feature here.
- Atheist Debates - Matt Dillahunty
- Rationality Rules
- Friendly Atheist
- Making Sense with Sam Harris
- Cosmic Skeptic
- Genetically Modified Skeptic
- Street Epistemology
- Armored Skeptic
- NonStampCollector
Orgs, Blogs, Zines
- Center for Inquiry
- American Atheists
- Humanists International
- Atheist Republic
- The Brights
- The Angry Atheist
- History for Atheists
- Rationalist International
- Atheist Revolution
- Debunking Christianity
- Godless Mom
- Atheist Freethinkers
Mainstream
Bibliography
Start here...
...proceed here.
- God is Not Great (Hitchens)
- The God Delusion (Dawkins)
- The End of Faith (Harris)
- Why I Am Not a Christian (Russell)
- Letter to a Christian Nation (Harris)
Proselytize Religion
From Reddit
As a community with an interest in providing the best resources to its members, the following wiki links are provided as historical reference until we can establish our own.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Or to any religion, for that matter
But Sikhs though. \s
I think I'm gonna start calling this the atheist equivalent of "all lives matter".
Do what you want, but the normalization of magical thinking is a net negative for society and it's wild that we just accept everyone's fairy tales as worthy of respect.
We call Christianity "Worthy of Respect" and Transness "Delusion". Even though transpeople are real and God isn't.
To be fair, while the definition of religion is essentially a contested ongoing linguistics debate, it does not necessarily require magical thinking.
Take the Satanic Temple or Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption for example.
Though still, I agree with your point about magical thinking, and as it is so commonplace as to be functionally synonymous with religion... I guess the point is largely moot.
edit: oof, I seem to have forgotten that pedantry should only be used against religion, and never in its defense. I will be sure to hand in my Atheist membership card at the next meeting.
Those examples are protest movements using the trappings of religion to attack religion, not examples of sincere religious belief detached from spirituality.
What gives you the right to tell Satanists that they aren't sincere? And no, TST does not "attack religion". We defend Satanism.
The gall, the audacity that I was born with. I don't doubt your sincere support of the Fundamental Tenets, but the point of using Satan as an icon is specifically to rile up Christians and it exists to shield people from Christian Fundamentalism (and religious-based persecution and abuse more broadly, but most of that is Christian-flavored where the Satanic Temple is active)
Oh, good grief. No, I'm not interested in "riling up Christians", either! In fact, I would prefer to get along with Christians. Almost 100% of my religious practice I've been alone or with other Satanists and zero Christians.
Then stop appropriating the iconography of their central villain. (Christians don't know that Baphomet and The Devil are different) It seems like you're ignorant of the history of the Temple, which is only 14 years old, and it very literally was founded to mock Christian extremist activists like Rick Scott. That's the whole bit.
I'm well aware of the history of the Temple. I've read Joseph Laycock's Speak of the Devil, which is a chronicle of TST's first decade. I recommend that you read it as well, because you have a lot of misapprehensions about TST.
It's not appropriation. Satan as a heroic figure also has a history that goes back hundreds of years into Romantic literature.
Besides, Christians didn't invent Satan. He came out of Jewish mythology.
Sure, by one definition of religion. By another, they're literally religions. But more to the point, they were meant as tongue-in-cheek examples that intentionally missed the mark, to avoid getting pulled too deep into the linguistics debate over something I'd already conceded is so commonplace in religion that positing it is reasonable.
But I digress. For unambiguous examples, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanistic Judaism, and Unitarian Universalism are organized religions with congregations, clergy, rituals, and legal recognition, and they require no magical thinking of any kind. Beyond those, traditions like Theravāda Buddhism, Jainism, and Confucianism can be and are practiced without any supernatural belief, even if their classical forms include things like rebirth or ancestor veneration.
You could argue the first group are just philosophies whose adherents happen to gather for ceremony and ritual. But that brings us right back to my first point, which is that the definition is contested.
If you want to use a definition of religion that requires belief in the supernatural, go for it. But that usage isn't universal, and your reply to zarkanian functionally forced your definition onto them. To me, that undermines the pursuit of truth and honest dialogue.
I will, thanks. There's a legal definition and there's a practical definition, as with many words, and for practical purposes the difference between a religion and a philosophy is magic.
If it was only a philosophy, then you'd have a point.
I said the definition is contested, so you picked your preferred one and declared it "the practical one." Practical for whom? Ethical Culture members with clergy, congregations, and 150 years of continuous practice? Defining religion as "philosophy plus magic" and then citing that definition as your evidence is just assuming your conclusion.
You're welcome to the definition. Just notice you got there by defining the counterexamples away, not by addressing them.
Alright, let's dig into the counterexamples.
Ethical Culture, or Ethical Humanism, doesn't call itself a religion but recognizes it fills some roles parallel to religious practice. The Ethical movement started as an explicitly secular idea and has grown/split/changed over a couple hundred years. Some branches call themselves religions, some even embrace spirituality (and not just in the way Felix Adler tried to redefine it as a kind of moral drive.) Already we're in a space where we have to accept that words mean multiple things depending on context, and I'm being flippant because it seemed obvious that in this conversation it isn't useful to use the term "religion" to mean multiple things when alternatives exist. It's not "contested" there are several valid definitions but that can't be applied interchangeably. Language should facilitate the communication of ideas, not muddy it. Furthering that point is the concept of a secular religion. This started as a critique of Christianity or "any religion, for that matter" and through that it should be assumed that subsequent use of the word "religion" in the thread was the type or types that could be applied to Christianity.
Regardless, we carry on.
Humanistic Judaism is essentially the same thing as Ethical Humanism but retaining the cultural heritage and rituals of Judaism (or part of it, they aren't a monolith). They make a distinction between "religious and secular traditions" implying that secularity is explicitly nonreligious in their point of view.
Unitarian Universalists do call themselves a religion and they are not a secular movement. The belief in a "higher power" of some kind is important to their identity and they don't shy away from language like "faith" or "religious practice." It's a rejection of dogma or enforcing specific creeds and will accept pretty much anyone because they're more interested in inclusiveness than spirituality but it's a beige religion attached to cuddly social justice movement.
So yeah, I stand by what I said. For the purposes of this conversation the difference between a religion and a philosophy is magic.
You just conceded my original point. "Several valid definitions that can't be applied interchangeably" is... what contested means. All I claimed at the start was that religion doesn't necessarily require magical thinking. So if several valid definitions exist and some of them cover nonmagical traditions, then the "necessarily" is dead.
Which gets at the actual problem here. Zarkanian made a point, you swapped in your own narrower definition of religion, and then argued against that instead. That's a strawman. And "assume we meant the Christianity type" doesn't fix that, because the thread explicitly widened to "any religion, for that matter." You can't broaden the scope to every religion and then retroactively narrow the definition when the counterexamples show up.
Also, some of this is just wrong. Ethical Culture was founded by Adler as a religion, and they literally went to court to be recognized as one (Washington Ethical Society v. DC, 1957). So "doesn't call itself a religion" is an interesting claim. And you've got UU backwards. They're creedless on purpose, humanism is one of their six official sources, and a big chunk of their members are atheists. Belief in a higher power isn't "important to their identity," it's explicitly optional. That's kind of their whole thing.
Everything you've argued follows from picking a definition, applying it to someone who wasn't using it, and treating the mismatch as their mistake. That's not a disagreement about religion. It's a disagreement you manufactured. You may not like religions, but you sure debate like you're in one.
That's not what contested means. The definition of "theory" is not contested because it means different things in different uses. You're still probably right about "religion" here because even in what should be the same use we're arguing particulars, but that some definitions apply and some don't isn't scoring you the point.
Second, I can't know because they haven't followed up, but I'm pretty sure I'm using the word the same way Phoenixz was and Zarkanian is who swapped in their definition to fit their interpretation of Satanism. I am confident that, in any case, Phoenixz did not mean "every possible definition of religion, up to and including metaphor and hyperbole."
Fighting for the legal protections that exist for religions does imply mean sincere religious belief, it can easily be pragmatism. (Further, Adler was doing this 150 years ago with the vocabulary that was available. And he knew he was so limited. "The word 'spiritual' becomes a synonym of muddy thought and misty emotionalism. If there were another word in the language to take its place, it would be well to use it. But there is not.") I could well be wrong in this case. But I don't think I'm wrong about UU, at least in general terms. The embracing of (almost) all beliefs and philosophies means that various forms of spirituality are a common thread that weaves through much of their identity. Or less charitably, accepting nonsense is supporting nonsense.
You can get rid of that "may." I'm openly and unapologetically hostile to all forms of magical thinking, religion-excused ignorance and abuse, and the protected status as "cultural default" theistic thought and structure has enjoyed forever (and especially the Abrahamic faiths in the modern world). It's fucking weird and I'm tired of pretending it isn't.
You can be religious without magical thinking.
Give an example.
The Satanic Temple.
As I told the other guy: not actually a religion, it's a protest group using the legal protections of religion in the United States to fight Christian overreach.
I know because I'm part of a TST congregation. We have ministers, we have rituals, we have holidays. We have tax-exempt status like any other church. If you ask anybody in my congregation, they'll say the same thing: our religion is Satanism and TST is our church.
No you can't, because all religion is is "Maybe God will reward me if I starve myself."
Buddhism? Satanism? Wicca? Any flavor of paganism?
I was Buddhist for awhile, but I could never get meditation to actually work. People think Buddhism's just atheism with breathing exercises. Naw there's an entire cosmology with Gods and being reincarnated as Ghosts, and shit. It all boiled down to "Maybe the universe will reward me if I meditate enough."
Was New Age for awhile too, but same problem... "Maybe I'll develop powers if I stay open minded enough"
It's all bullshit, all faiths
Organized religion is just a tool utilized to control people. Nothing more.
They didn't even say "organized religion". They said "all religion".