Which Is Parasitic, Atheism Or Theism?

[Yozavan]

Metaphorically, which is parasitic, atheism or theism? Which side hosts an alien intruder, that eats away its hapless victim? What does the parasite gain? What does its host lose?


I suppose the sophisticated theologian would opine, that any view which lacks at its center: the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and the salvific obedience thereof, would be parasitic; with Satan as the parasite and the host his digestive prey, as an affront to the Divine image.


I suppose the sophisticated atheist would opine, that any view which lacks at its center: the independence from supernatural mechanisms, and the liberty thereof, to be parasitic, with humanity's propensity for imaginative thinking to be the parasite, with no digestive purpose.. ( Unless nature's defense be argued , which would presuppose de facto that nature is cognitive as a whole, which would be a pantheistic argument. )

Addendum: This is in the spirit of Daniel Dennett and Michael Shermer.

Michael Shermer mentions in his book: Why People Believe Weird Things, that " evolution gives us two types of thinking. Causal thinking and critical thinking. Casual thinking tends to lead to magical thinking, while critical thinking tends to lead to pattern seeking and problem solving. Humanity can never divorce itself from magical thinking."

Daniel Dennett frequently calls religious tendencies a parasite in his book, Breaking The Spell: Religion As A Natural Phenomenon.

[Yozavan]

A deranged drunkard once told me: " Theism is parasitic. Religion is the parasite that devours its hosts for political and monetary gain. Atheism is parasitic. Materialism is the parasite that devours its hosts for political and monetary gain." Then he ordered another bourbon with diet Coke and nihilism.

[Purple Knight]

Neither is inherently parasitic on the other.

If theism doesn't work, theism is often parasitic on theism, the ones that want to follow the righteous morality being called upon to give their money and resources to parasites who say that the giving, is itself the righteous morality, then spend it on Italian suits and sports cars and even mobile games.*

If theism does work, and it rovides real morality that benefits everyone, then atheism can be seen to parasitise theism, not contributing to the moral structure but nevertheless benefiting from it. Assuming every cent in that collection plate really goes toward bringing about a more moral society, even the moral atheist is reaping that benefit without paying for it.

*In this particular instance I actually don't blame the priest, because it's obvious he didn't intend to charge $40k to his church card. He probably intended to embezzle far less, because let's be honest if he stole that much he knew he'd be caught. So in this particular case I blame addictive mobile games.

[Yozavan]

If money hustlers were the issue then theism pounces atheism. Secularism makes way more money than religion does, but secularism provides comforts, toys etc, which theists and atheists both enjoy vigorously.

I was thinking in terms of Daniel Dennett, who calls religious tendencies a parasite. I kinda just threw this debate together though. I didn't really think it through

[Purple Knight]

If money hustlers were the issue then theism pounces atheism. Secularism makes way more money than religion does, but secularism provides comforts, toys etc, which theists and atheists both enjoy vigorously.

But theists don't make any money off of atheists.

The worst theists do is collect money for doing nothing, but they don't collect it from atheists, at least not in the modern world. In some other world, or some other place, if people are forced or even pressured to tithe, then theism can be seen to parasitise atheism, but only if it's not giving anything back.

If theism really is helping to enforce a moral structure that benefits all, including atheists, then pressuring the atheists to pay for it could be seen as wrong and forceful by Libertarians, but it doesn't qualify as parasitism in that case. It just qualifies as forcing free riders to pay their share.

[Yozavan]

If money hustlers were the issue then theism pounces atheism. Secularism makes way more money than religion does, but secularism provides comforts, toys etc, which theists and atheists both enjoy vigorously.

But theists don't make any money off of atheists.

The worst theists do is collect money for doing nothing, but they don't collect it from atheists, at least not in the modern world. In some other world, or some other place, if people are forced or even pressured to tithe, then theism can be seen to parasitise atheism, but only if it's not giving anything back.

If theism really is helping to enforce a moral structure that benefits all, including atheists, then pressuring the atheists to pay for it could be seen as wrong and forceful by Libertarians, but it doesn't qualify as parasitism in that case. It just qualifies as forcing free riders to pay their share.

I meant more people use theist's barbecue sauce than atheists barbecue sauce. The barbecue sauce salesman of the former has procured more mammon than the latter


Theist's don't collect money for doing nothing. They sell barbecue sauce! Some people need a flavored steak.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Yozavan in post #1]

I don't think this is how you mean 'parasite' and I think both atheism and theism are parasitic in different senses, but I do think atheism is parasitic in a way that theism isn't. I think atheistic worldviews are parasitic on certain beliefs that atheism can't ground, such as reason and (for some) objective morality.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #7]

We don't have to ground reason. If people don't want to live by it, they don't have to. I admit that objective morality is hard to ground though. And if you're going to enforce it on others who do not agree, you need to do that.

[The Tanager]

We don't have to ground reason. If people don't want to live by it, they don't have to. I admit that objective morality is hard to ground though. And if you're going to enforce it on others who do not agree, you need to do that.

What about those that want to live by reason? Why don't they need a worldview that can ground it?

[Purple Knight]

We don't have to ground reason. If people don't want to live by it, they don't have to. I admit that objective morality is hard to ground though. And if you're going to enforce it on others who do not agree, you need to do that.

What about those that want to live by reason? Why don't they need a worldview that can ground it?

Conveniently not. Because if logic is real, in that contradictions cannot be true, living by that assumption is also correct.

But if there is no logic, there can be no reasoning or justification for anything so everything is equally valid, and picking reason over unreason is the same as picking blueberry over banana; just a flavour choice.

See, if all is chaos, you're not wrong to think all is not chaos, because the kind of truth that would make not-X false if X is true, does not even exist.