The Difference Between Atheism And Religion

[Swammerdami]

Phrases like “militant fundamentalist atheists” are the cute little canards that theists so often use to promote the false idea that there is no real difference between theism and atheism, that atheism is a kind of “religious fundy belief system” in its own right. It’s complete garbage, of course.

Have you spent much time in the Jesus Myth Theory threads? There are some here with such a desperate "need" to refute Christianity that they defy the consensus of professional historians and common-sense by insisting that even a mortal ordinary Jesus of Nazareth never existed at all! They have a blind faith in the charlatan Dr. Richard Carrier, PhD quite similar to the faith Fundie Christians had for Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker.

Well, there is a thread titled The Christ Myth Theory, but as I mentioned once before, I avoided it for a long time because I misread the title as The Crystal Meth Theory.

Not plausible. Jesus died sometime around 30 CE, wheras crystal methamphetamines weren't first synthesized until 1919 CE: a substantial temporal gap. The historical Jesus would more likely have used opium or a cannabis derivative.

Opium and cannabis are only weak hallucinogens. To hallucinate a man walking across a lake or a corpse standing and talking, a drink like kykeon might have been deployed:

In an attempt to solve the mystery of how so many people over the span of two millennia could have consistently experienced revelatory states during the culminating ceremony of the Eleusinian Mysteries, it has been posited that the barley used in the Eleusinian kykeon was parasitized by ergot, and that the psychoactive properties of that fungus triggered the intense experiences alluded to by the participants at Eleusis.

Discovery of fragments of ergot (fungi containing LSD-like psychedelic alkaloids) in a temple dedicated to the two Eleusinian goddesses excavated at the Mas Castellar site (Girona, Spain) provided some possible support for this theory. Ergot fragments were found inside a vase and within the dental calculus of a 25-year-old man, providing evidence of ergot being consumed. This finding seems to support the hypothesis of ergot as an ingredient of the Eleusinian kykeon.

 

[Politesse]

In Palestine? How would it have gotten there, and how would an itinerant beggar get his hands on any if it did? Kykeon was a temple mystery so secret it has been lost to history.

 

[pood]

In Palestine? How would it have gotten there, and how would an itinerant beggar get his hands on any if it did? Kykeon was a temple mystery so secret it has been lost to history.

Gazans were probably to blame.

 

[Swammerdami]

In Palestine? How would it have gotten there, and how would an itinerant beggar get his hands on any if it did? Kykeon was a temple mystery so secret it has been lost to history.

This is a topic where the Mythicists' intuition is sound, though all their details are wrong.

Sources have been "sanitized" to show "John the Baptist" as a lower-class Galilean who simply dunked his clients into a river, but he was actually a missionary named Giánnis o Pótis ("John the Imbiber") who was a skilled priest in Elefsina and was sent to Judaea by a consortium of wealthy Attican pig farmers. The residents of Judaea and Galilee were refusing to import pigs; the whole sordid episode began in an effort to expand the market for Attican livestock.

Giánnis discovered that the reluctance to eat pig-meat was some sort of religious instruction, so replacing that religion was the most viable way to expand the market for swine. Giánnis was already an expert at preparing kykeon and developed a particularly potent form of this drink from Judaean barley. He enlisted Iesous and a few others from the small village of Nazareth, swore them to secrecy, and taught them his recipe for this delightful hallucinogenic.

The Gospels -- with their tales of heavenly voices emanating from the skies, and drugs mitigating hunger -- only hint at the power of Giánnis' magic potion. Mostly the imbibers indulged in frenetic orgies, but the most pornographic material has been prudishly excised from surviving accounts.

The mission was largely a smashing success, but by the time it was written up the details had been thoroughly disguised. Instead of Persephone being raped by her uncle Hades, the Canaanite version had a mortal Maria raped by her own father Yahweh. Iesous was not killed on purpose but was accidentally killed by Pilate while the two were drunk on kykeon and playing at erotic asphyxiation. The whole crucifixion narrative was invented to conceal Pilate's shame.

ETA: Since this true account shreds the foundations of the "world's greatest religion," I think I should have enclosed it in a Spoiler. Perhaps Mods can make amends.

 

[Swammerdami]

I am so sad. I thought the following post was a candidate for my most hilarious post ever (and I DO often strive for hilarity). Yet the only response it got was a laughing icon from Politesse and I'm not sure if he was laughing WITH me or laughing AT me.

In Palestine? How would it have gotten there, and how would an itinerant beggar get his hands on any if it did? Kykeon was a temple mystery so secret it has been lost to history.

This is a topic where the Mythicists' intuition is sound, though all their details are wrong.

Sources have been "sanitized" to show "John the Baptist" as a lower-class Galilean who simply dunked his clients into a river, but he was actually a missionary named Giánnis o Pótis ("John the Imbiber") who was a skilled priest in Elefsina and was sent to Judaea by a consortium of wealthy Attican pig farmers. The residents of Judaea and Galilee were refusing to import pigs; the whole sordid episode began in an effort to expand the market for Attican livestock.

Giánnis discovered that the reluctance to eat pig-meat was some sort of religious instruction, so replacing that religion was the most viable way to expand the market for swine. Giánnis was already an expert at preparing kykeon and developed a particularly potent form of this drink from Judaean barley. He enlisted Iesous and a few others from the small village of Nazareth, swore them to secrecy, and taught them his recipe for this delightful hallucinogenic.

The Gospels -- with their tales of heavenly voices emanating from the skies, and drugs mitigating hunger -- only hint at the power of Giánnis' magic potion. Mostly the imbibers indulged in frenetic orgies, but the most pornographic material has been prudishly excised from surviving accounts.

The mission was largely a smashing success, but by the time it was written up the details had been thoroughly disguised. Instead of Persephone being raped by her uncle Hades, the Canaanite version had a mortal Maria raped by her own father Yahweh. Iesous was not killed on purpose but was accidentally killed by Pilate while the two were drunk on kykeon and playing at erotic asphyxiation. The whole crucifixion narrative was invented to conceal Pilate's shame.

ETA: Since this true account shreds the foundations of the "world's greatest religion," I think I should have enclosed it in a Spoiler. Perhaps Mods can make amends.

Poll question, please:

Explain why you did NOT click Like on this allegedly hilarious post by Swammi.

1. TL;DR and/or the very first sentence was a turn-off.
2. The Life of our Holy Saviour is a much too solemn and important story to crack jokes about.
3. It WAS hilarious, but I didn't want to encourage Swammi.
4. Puh-leeeze. If I wanted humor I'd tune in a REAL comic, or watch the latest press conference of the Orange Blowhard.

Similarly, reaction to the following post makes me think that many of you assume that I'm a supporter of the Great Man with His Large Hands, and that I am thankful that The D of Independence is to be entrusted to his care for appropriate edits.

The stupid, it burns.

Trump now wants the Declaration Of Independence moved to the Oval Office.

Can he get any more childish???

Conservatives hate this part:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

That's a good reason to move the document to Trump's control. He'll be able to mark up or cross out the "bad parts" with his Sharpie.

My mother stated, more than once and NOT as a compliment, that my father had "a Scottish sense of humor." As I mentioned in another thread I inherited exaggerated versions of all my father's worst traits. I have edited the "basic beliefs" in my profile in hopes of reducing future confusion.

 

[unapologetic]

Explain why you did NOT click Like on this allegedly hilarious post by Swammi.

I read the first paragraph.

1) TLDR
5) I know the bible had been "sanitized". And I am not much familiar with 'the baptist', so I missed the humor. Stopped reading.
Sorry.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

6) Everyone thought it was real.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Science seeks to explain the world through observation, evidence, and testable theories, aiming for natural explanations. Religion seeks meaning, purpose, or moral guidance, often relying on faith, revelation, or the supernatural. Science asks "how," religion asks "why" - different tools, different domains.​

Religion doesn't ask "why". People ask "why". Religion tells you "what" and demands you accept it as it is the basis of a very important and imperceptible "who" or you aren't a member of it. Religion banishes one for doubt.

Science doesn't just ask "how", it asks "what, why, how, when".

Science often rejects progress, like mechanical flight, for example, or germ theory? It isn't really fair to say "science" rejected those, but rather scientists who were unscientific in their approach. Take mechanical flight: In the late 19th century, some prominent scientists, like Lord Kelvin, dismissed heavier-than-air flight as impossible, despite evidence from early inventors and nature (birds!). That wasn’t science rejecting flight; it was scientists ignoring observation for theory. Same with germ theory - Pasteur and Semmelweis faced pushback from doctors who scoffed at invisible "germs" causing disease, even as data piled up. The resistance came from entrenched biases, not the scientific method itself.​

And in the end, science generally rights itself. In the battle of inertia and truth/observation, the later wins. It might not be easy, but it does come out on top.

 

[DLH]

Religion doesn't ask "why". People ask "why". Religion tells you "what" and demands you accept it as it is the basis of a very important and imperceptible "who" or you aren't a member of it. Religion banishes one for doubt.

Science doesn't just ask "how", it asks "what, why, how, when".

And in the end, science generally rights itself. In the battle of inertia and truth/observation, the later wins. It might not be easy, but it does come out on top.

In that case my approach to God, spirituality and the Bible more closely resembles science than religion.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Religion doesn't ask "why". People ask "why". Religion tells you "what" and demands you accept it as it is the basis of a very important and imperceptible "who" or you aren't a member of it. Religion banishes one for doubt.

Science doesn't just ask "how", it asks "what, why, how, when".

And in the end, science generally rights itself. In the battle of inertia and truth/observation, the later wins. It might not be easy, but it does come out on top.

In that case my approach to God, spirituality and the Bible more closely resembles science than religion.

That'd seem doubtful. You seem to mix-up terms like religion and spirituality / religion and philosophy which is an indication you don't have a good grasp on the subject.

But you do appear to excel in the inflation of your personal sense of your understanding.

 

[DLH]

That'd seem doubtful. You seem to mix-up terms like religion and spirituality / religion and philosophy which is an indication you don't have a good grasp on the subject.

I define religion as a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. Textbook, really, though, isn't it? If you limit your definition as the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods that doesn't negate my definition but it might negate your ideology. Spirituality I define from the Hebrew ruach and pneuma which are also translated as wind, breeze, breath, compelled mental inclination. An invisible force that produces visible results. Pneumonia, pneumatic. I think the Hebrew comes from a root meaning "blow."

Philosophy I would define as bullshit, but that's interesting because I would do so in ignorance and a sort of ideological disliking of particular systems of philosophical thought. You see? It's really specific paradigms themselves rather than the concept of philosophy itself I would dismiss as excrement of a bovine variety.

A lot of people do that with religion.

SEEN ANY?

But you do appear to excel in the inflation of your personal sense of your understanding.

Ah, is that what it is. That could be superiority masking inferiority. I, however, don't see it that way of course. I've always thought of myself as average stupid. That may say more about my critics who judge my sense of my understanding than it does me.

 

[NoHolyCows]

I was an unbeliever until I was 27, everyone I know is atheist, I've been having religious discussions online for over 30 years, 99% of that has been by choice with atheists on atheists forums. Most of which ended badly. I would like to know what is. in your opinion, the difference between atheism and religion?

The difference between atheism and religion isn’t complicated — unless your goal is to pretend it is.

You say you’ve spent 30 years in conversations with atheists, on atheist forums, by choice. Thirty years. And now, you’re asking the most basic question: “What’s the difference between atheism and religion?” After three decades, that’s not a question — it’s a routine. It’s not curiosity — it’s cover.

Atheism is a single answer to a single question: Do you believe in a god? Religion builds entire worldviews around that belief — doctrines, rituals, scriptures, institutions, authority structures. You know this. You’ve always known this.

So the real question is: why are you still pretending you don’t?

Because once you accept the actual definition, the game falls apart.
No more strawmen. No more deflections. No more forced equivalence.
Just a clean break between belief and non-belief — and that’s the line you keep trying to blur.

You’re not asking for clarity. You’re asking for confusion — because clarity ruins the play.

And everyone can see that now.

NHC

 

[steve_bank]

Yes, given 30 years something does not ring true about his clams to theism and atheism.

It always goes bad?

Look at his tag 'atheist nightmare'. Don't know what DLH is trying to accomplish. If he thinks he is putting anybody back on their heels here he is mistaken.

Maybe he has a single minded obsession that has driven him for 30 years.

Maybe he is a complete fraud.

 

[DLH]

The difference between atheism and religion isn’t complicated — unless your goal is to pretend it is.

The difference between atheism and religion isn't complicated, whether we want to pretend it is or not. There is no difference. That's my opinion. I've asked for yours.

You say you’ve spent 30 years in conversations with atheists, on atheist forums, by choice. Thirty years. And now, you’re asking the most basic question: “What’s the difference between atheism and religion?” After three decades, that’s not a question — it’s a routine. It’s not curiosity — it’s cover.

It's a question you don't have to address.

Atheism is a single answer to a single question: Do you believe in a god? Religion builds entire worldviews around that belief — doctrines, rituals, scriptures, institutions, authority structures. You know this. You’ve always known this.

Know it? I don't even agree with it.

So the real question is: why are you still pretending you don’t?

The unbelievers are blinded by light. I don't have to pretend anything.

Because once you accept the actual definition, the game falls apart.
No more strawmen. No more deflections. No more forced equivalence.
Just a clean break between belief and non-belief — and that’s the line you keep trying to blur.

You’re not asking for clarity. You’re asking for confusion — because clarity ruins the play.

And everyone can see that now.

[Laughs]

 

[NoHolyCows]

The difference between atheism and religion isn't complicated, whether we want to pretend it is or not. There is no difference. That's my opinion. I've asked for yours.

You’re free to hold an opinion — but that doesn’t make it true. You can say there’s no difference, but saying it doesn’t erase the facts: atheism is a single position — the absence of belief in gods — while religion is a full system: sacred texts, doctrines, rituals, hierarchies, divine commands, afterlife claims. That distinction exists whether you like it or not. You weren’t asking for my opinion. You were baiting a trap — and now that it’s been exposed, you’re pretending it was just a casual question all along.

It's a question you don't have to address.

And yet I did. Clearly, directly, and on-point. You’re only saying that now because you don’t want to deal with the answer. This is your pattern: raise a question, get a precise response, then try to wave it away as irrelevant or optional. But once the spotlight is on your tactic, you don’t get to decide when the question no longer matters.

Know it? I don't even agree with it.

You don’t have to agree with a definition for it to be correct. This isn’t a matter of interpretation — it’s a matter of language and structure. If someone said, “I don’t agree that triangles have three sides,” it wouldn’t change the geometry. Your refusal to accept the definition of atheism doesn’t challenge it — it just shows how committed you are to avoiding what it means.

The unbelievers are blinded by light. I don't have to pretend anything.

That’s not an argument — that’s a slogan. You’re dodging the substance of the conversation with vague theological one-liners, hoping that poetic language will mask the fact that you haven’t answered the challenge. You absolutely are pretending — pretending not to understand definitions, not to see evidence, not to engage with arguments — because facing them directly would require changing your script.

[Laughs

When the argument runs out, the smirk comes in. You laugh not because something was funny — but because everything landed. It’s the oldest trick in the playbook: when cornered, turn it into a performance. But the laugh doesn’t cover the silence underneath — and everyone watching knows it.

NHC

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But you do appear to excel in the inflation of your personal sense of your understanding.

Ah, is that what it is. That could be superiority masking inferiority. I, however, don't see it that way of course. I've always thought of myself as average stupid. That may say more about my critics who judge my sense of my understanding than it does me.

Is that so, "Atheist Nightmare"?

 

[pood]

TRENDS AND IDEAS

Theist Who Has Been Talking to Atheists for More Than 30 Years on Atheist Message Boards Still Doesn’t Know Difference Between Religion and Atheism

IIDB (Internet News Service) — A theist who has been talking to atheists on atheist message boards for more than 30 years still doesn’t know the difference between religion and atheism, sources confirmed early Monday.

After soliciting the opinion of others on an area message board, the theist, DLH, asserted, “There is no difference.”

Experts conceded that trying to pinpoint the difference between the two was indeed a real baffler.

One expert on atheism and religion, who asked for anonymity owing to the delicacy of the subject, speculated: “One difference might be that those who adhere to a religion vs. those who don’t is that the former believe in a supernatural god of some sort and the latter don’t, but don’t quote me by name on that. I’m just kinda throwing that out there for discussion. It’s pure speculation.”

Other analysts, using DLH as a test case, said another difference might be that theists are rude, vituperative, intemperate, insulting, disingenuous, humorless and self-pitying and atheists aren’t, but cautioned that no scientific conclusion could be reliably drawn from a single data point.

 

[Learner]

The difference between atheism and religion isn't complicated, whether we want to pretend it is or not. There is no difference. That's my opinion. I've asked for yours.

Christians sometimes use the word 'religion' when regarding a negative sense. The term religion in context here is differentiating 'man-made traditions' that are not necessarily biblical traditions. It all depends on how one uses the word and definition.

I agree with what you say about Atheists and Theists but I would use the word FAITH rather than religion, as you know, religion may not be quite clear when several people are using different terms with the word.

Atheists say they are not religious (in the way Theists are), which is fine..

... they certainly DO use FAITH often for conclusions,like for example, various aspects of knowledge believed about the universe.

 

[DLH]

But you do appear to excel in the inflation of your personal sense of your understanding.

Ah, is that what it is. That could be superiority masking inferiority. I, however, don't see it that way of course. I've always thought of myself as average stupid. That may say more about my critics who judge my sense of my understanding than it does me.

Is that so, "Atheist Nightmare"?

It is, indeed, "Contributor."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But you do appear to excel in the inflation of your personal sense of your understanding.

Ah, is that what it is. That could be superiority masking inferiority. I, however, don't see it that way of course. I've always thought of myself as average stupid. That may say more about my critics who judge my sense of my understanding than it does me.

Is that so, "Atheist Nightmare"?

It is, indeed, "Contributor."

You alleged great humbleness, yet label your an "Atheist Nightmare". You can't have it both ways. You can't be both a babe in the woods or a force to be reckoned with.